Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 25 January 27 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 26

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete DES (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pol Pot (game)

I've searched high and low, and I can't find any evidence that this card game is verifiable; it appears to be an obscure localized variant, with absolutely no published sources describing it. I don't want to redirect to shithead (card game), because for the purposes of Wikipedia this isn't even a verifiably legitimate alternate name for the game. CDC (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete It is too obscure and can't be verified.--Adam (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research unless verification is provided. Ziggurat 01:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and even if it were verifiable, there is probably plenty of room for it over at Shithead (card game). Peyna 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete instructions for a totally obscure game. Ruby 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with Peyna. Jawz 02:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NFT, also sounds like a deliberate rip off of the name of Mao (game) -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifable and per nom. --Terence Ong 09:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uberman624 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete per nom --Nick123 (t/c) 21:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was copyvio. – ABCDe✉ 19:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guido Gybels

Likely vanity article created by anon IP address. Supplied information (other than job title which is unnotable) is vague and unsourced. Only external link is to blog. Already mentioned (by self-edit) on employers entry. Requires serious context, evidence of notability and expansion or Delete. Deiz 00:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete The only reference is a personal web page. Vanity--Adam (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are 991 hits for "Guido Gybels" on Google. The article just needs to be cleaned up and expanded a bit. Ruby 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The google hits test is only a secondary indicator, highlighting as it does simply the number of times a given term appears in webpages... 991 google hits is on its own absolutely no indicator of notability (check out Notability) and lends no credibility to a 'keep' vote without other evidence. The figure or search criteria also appears to be wrong, a google search for "guido gybels" returned 603 hits, 190 of which are unique.
  • Delete. Gamaliel 01:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a copyvio from http://www.160characters.org/pages.php?action=view&pid=33. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Not a speedy. -- JJay 02:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TheCureForBoredom.com

Self explanitory very non-notable, the page even admits that the website is defunct and it's Alexa rating is in the 900,000+. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete because as the article admits, it "ranks somewhere in the 900,000s on Alexa." Ruby 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very non-notable indeed. -Ikkyu2 01:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. VegaDark 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as NN. Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 03:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Eurosong 04:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable website. JIP | Talk 06:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alexa rank around 900 000, no claim to significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, clearly. We only have 1,729,031 articles altogether for fuxxake, and only a small percentage of them pertain to websites. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:46, Jan. 26, 2006
  • Delete nn website. --Terence Ong 09:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an nn website --Nick123 (t/c) 21:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and reirect to SoX. - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Bagwell

Non-notable/vanity. Program mentioned seems genuine but author seems irrelevant. Reads almost like an advertisement. Mark83 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and redirect to SoX.--Ezeu 01:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Whoop-de-doo, his program reverses WAVs and MP3s, so does Audacity and AudioSurgeon. Ruby 01:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to SoX --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to SoX. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable Eurosong 04:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Who is going to search for Sox by typing the name of the guy who wrote it? Ruby 04:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh just delete vanity. --Terence Ong 09:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Total vanity. --Brian1979 14:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiba Shiga Saga

A Flash cartoon with no evidence of notability - 131 Google hits. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 06:06Z

Relisting in search of participation. -Splashtalk 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam. --Ezeu 01:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We're sitting here deleting flash cartoon SITE articles, but now here comes articles for just the cartoons. Ruby 01:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable enough. VegaDark 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable. --Terence Ong 09:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, poor Google showing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 17:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fléau

Another band vanity page. The search results appear to be false positives. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Jan. 20, 2006

  • NN per WP:MUSIC. As noted, the band that actually turns up in Google searches isn't the same group at all. Delete. Bearcat 23:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Relisting in search of participation. -Splashtalk 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN band.--Ezeu 01:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Albums have to do more than see the light. Ruby 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn garage band. incog 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nn band/music criteria. --Timecop 01:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non-notable. See you when your hard work is complete. -- Femmina 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. *drew 05:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete non-notable band. --Terence Ong 09:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holiday mansion

Neglected article on boat manufacturer with no evidence of notability. "Although not seen as well-built or popular, Holiday Mansion houseboats have a loyal following among lake boaters and coastal cruisers alike." Hmm... —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 09:27Z

  • Keep (and cleanup). This is a boat manufacturer that apparently made a popular consumer product for 20+ years. The article seems factual and well-researched, though it does not cite sources or references and is somewhat informal in tone. It appears to have been a notable product in its day. MCB 06:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Relisting in search of participation. -Splashtalk 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep At least it's not an advertisment. Ruby 01:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but needs serious wikifying. Night Gyr 02:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and wikify. --Terence Ong 11:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there evidence of notability anywhere? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 22:03Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piers Fawkes

Delete this is just advertising. Web searches reveal little but this guy's blog and links to it from other blogs. Uucp 14:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Relisting in search of participation. -Splashtalk 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete void of notability and vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 01:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete He creates business with his "viral marketing firm" and markets even himself, apparently. Ruby 01:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. He is busy, but not notable. --Ezeu 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable bio. Superm401 - Talk 03:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 06:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography, as per WP:BIO.  (aeropagitica)  07:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable bio. --Terence Ong 11:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S3 Films

None of this film studio's projects are listed on IMDB. This is a vanity article, written by one of the founders of this outfit. eae 08:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


What I had typed here first (I erased my pervious entry on this page) was a reason why this page shouldn't be deleted. I don't really care though. Just delete it if you want. I mean, it's pretty relevant, if these guys get any bigger then they'll be as important to Alvin as Nolan Ryan once was (he moved apparently). Also, just because they're not listed on IMDB doesn't mean they're not important or anything, just go watch Student Film: The Movie on video.google.com and you'll see. OtakupunkX 14:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

When these guys (which includes OtakupunkX, who founded the studio and created the article) get any bigger, someone else will notice and write an article. As it stands, there is nothing about S3 Films that warrants a Wikipedia article. Also, IMDB is considered the basic way of checking whether a film is notable. eae 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

So, if somebody else wrote the article and something by S3 Films popped up on IMDB, would it be considered notable then? There are a lot of movies that aren't on IMDB, like, say, anything by X-Strike Studios. IMDB mainly just shows movies that got a commercial release somewhere. Nothing by S3 Films has gotten a commercial release because they release everything for free online via video.google.com, Google's video hosting service.OtakupunkX 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

When someone unaffiliated with the studio writes an article, that article will be notable by definition. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability. I believe the Definition section is relevant to the S3 Films article. eae 19:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the difference whether someone affiliated with the studio or not writes the article? Chances are someone in the studio will have a hand in the article anyway to make sure the information's not totally bogus. OtakupunkX 14:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that articles written by the subject of that article himself do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines about notability or neutral point of view. eae 19:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. This "studio" founded by an eighth grader because he was bored (as the article explains) is not notable enough. Google turns up no non-mirror hits. --Thunk 00:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Relisting in search of participation. -Splashtalk 01:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No Wikipedia-style verification here. Ziggurat 01:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry kid, but the film club you and your buddies got together just isn't wikipedia material. When you've done something notable, then you get an article. Night Gyr 01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, non-notable. If they start to make good enough films that they are covered in the media or win awards, then maybe at that point in time they'll need an encyclopedia article. While Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and has more "room" for article, that doesn't mean we don't have guidelines or policies about what warrants inclusion in the encyclopedia. Peyna 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable, vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 01:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - There's not much to say about a studio that instead of worrying about piracy or labor disputes has problems like "To this day, the two short films are still stored on the hard drive of a broken computer at Nabours's house, but there are plans to release the titles online at a later date." Ruby 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —rodii 04:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NFT. Stifle 09:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong 11:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Qward. --Deathphoenix 01:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow-Force

Scant information, should be merged with Qward universe article. Esprit15d 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Relisting in search of participation. -Splashtalk 01:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I hate articles where you have to follow a link just to find out what its even talking about. Ruby 01:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. --Ezeu 01:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Qward if there's anything useful. TimBentley 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per TimBently. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arc Flashlights

  • I wrote the article to be informative but that also makes it a form of solicited advertising. All wiki I presume seek to inform so as to promote/demote various data to the utility of the reader. I attempted to write the article in a more neutral tone so as not to presume on the trust between the wiki and its readers. If what I wrote violates policy or offends the majority, my apologies and I accept the deletion. In my defense, I did notice that other flashlight brands (similiary "un-notable") have wiki entries. 71.37.207.95 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)71.37.207.95 15:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-notable line of flashlights, created by user with same name as the subject of the article as his only edit. Surprisingly neutral for an ad, but still vanity/spam. Night Gyr 01:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Its advertisement. --Ezeu 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. There's some kind of problem with protection on this subpage's section heading; cast your vote here. -Ikkyu2 03:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 16:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Looks like an advertisement as it's mostly explaining the products. I'd suggest writing more about Arc Flashlights' background, notability, etc.. I see Maglite as a nice example of a product article. --HeteroZellous 19:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 01:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Ward-Recording Engineer/Producer

Non-notable internet producer (Ward%22 recording engineer%2Fproducer 14 Google results), also may be a Vanity violation Mysekurity 01:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - This page should be kept. I don't understand why you would advocate deletion, especially after looking at all of your various user pages, which are instrinsically worthless themsleves. This fellow has done many a recording and is a serious engineer with well known work credited to his name . . . he IS a professional. If this page is deleted, I want your user pages deleted alongside it, epsecially since they're nothing more than an attempt at creating a temple to your personal cult of the individual. Im sick of seeing cheap displays of population control on the WWW. You who would be thanatopoliticians in your own bedrooms, if you had even such modicum of power, should stay out of creating a wiki-utopia. This man has attempted to disambiguate himself from the hockey player. Play with your puck in the privacy of your own bedroom. . . . not on wikipedia.


Keep - I agree this may be/may have started off as a vanity thing, but this is not a non notable person in the music industry which in itself is non notable on google. Find me any music producer with an outragous amount of hits in google. I mean this man has done music for Sting, Paul Newman, Social Distortion Primadonnas The Offspring and countless other big name music acts. Joe I 01:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


  • His biggest claim to fame seems to be working on a couple of songs each for a handful of bands, and not even any particularly notable songs. (see [1]) Paul Hardiman he ain't, and we don't even have an article on that guy. Delete Night Gyr 01:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - This would be the same as an article about a session musician who plays bass for this or that solo artist. Unless the producer really stands out like Phil Spector or Alan Parsons, sorry, no encyclopedia article. Ruby 01:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ruby's right. -Ikkyu2 06:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, I'm wasn't terribly familiar with wikipedia, but while following a string on an artist came across a reference to myself (the potential deletion in question), which led to an article on the professional hockey player of the same name, which I thought was a bit confusing. So after taking a look around and finding 2 or 3 other references to my work (in articles not being considered for deletion btw), I took a version on me that I found under the hockey player string and reposted it under a less confusing and more distinct heading, so there you have it. Do what you will, but if a number of articles on musicians (which are apparently not 'vanity listings') link to a professional hockey player as their recording engineer or producer, how is that helping wikipedia? Keep Jason Ward] 09:23, 27 January 2007

There was no concencous. The vote was tied at 3 apeice. This should not have been deleted! Joe I 01:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily userfied as an autobiography and a re-creation of deleted article content. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:05, Jan. 26, 2006

[edit] Kevin Jamison

  • A promotion of a Wikipedian's biography. Delete. Georgia guy 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom --Mecanismo | Talk 01:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete Article deals with significant works and contributions to society. Not written by subject of article, rather by Carmella Montanarelli, a close friend and confidant of Jamison. Jamison's contributions to society should be no less noted than many other's on wikipedia. Talk 01:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable, whether Wikipedian, autobiographical, or neither. -Ikkyu2 01:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Has a handful of accomplishments. Ruby 01:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish_men's_rap_group, J.M.R.G.

The article appears to be about a small Ohio-based social club, possibly with only 4 members. In absence of other information, this is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Ikkyu2 01:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax, "...three members did manage to meet with the elusive Hamburglar..." Ruby 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax/nonsense incog 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like original research with no verifiable information. --Timecop 02:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BALLS. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:37, Jan. 26, 2006
  • Delete, nonsense/hoax. VegaDark 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{hoax}} article, no substance to the idea of the band.  (aeropagitica)  07:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax/nonsense. --King of All the Franks 07:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.Non verifiable, original research.--Dakota ~ ε 17:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax Bad ideas 21:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Role-Playing

Essay.-- Perfecto 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research. Is this speediable? --Perfecto 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -Ikkyu2 01:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per perfecto. Ruby 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, try again at WikiBooks or some other site. I would take it more seriously if it were there :) (otherwise, WP:NOT, original research/op/ed) Jawz 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Tidy up, and Transwiki to wikibooks. -- 9cds(talk) 04:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Essay, POV article, violates original research and WP:NPOV caveats.  (aeropagitica)  07:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by request of creator, closing AfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 08:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American Airlines Flight 11 victims

This is nothing but a list of names. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Radiant_>|< 01:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Given the historical implications of the September 11 2001 attacks, this list may be of interest to journalists, authors, and other historians. -Ikkyu2 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Extremely notable and verifiable. It's not a memorial, it's a fact. Ifnord 01:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is definitely not a speedy keep. Please familiarize yourself with deletion policy. Radiant_>|< 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • My gut reaction is to take offense with what appears to be a snooty remark but I will assume good faith here. There is a grey area between policy and guideline in general on Wikipedia. Often an AfD will arise and a chorus of "speedy delete" (or "speedy keep", etc.) will rise up. A hoax, for example. Someone will always pipe up, "But that doesn't meet criteria..." No, perhaps not, but the AfD gets closed early if consensus is reached. Ifnord 02:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Material previously transwikied to the sept11 wiki and moved back as part of a debate. Violation of WP:POINT. Night Gyr 01:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that so? That would make it a speedy delete on grounds of A5 (transwikied articles) or G4 (recreation). Radiant_>|< 01:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Kaldari says there "My real hope is that we can migrate all the important NPOV content from the Memorial Wiki back to Wikipedia and then close, lock, or move the Memorial wiki so that it is no longer the lonely neglected step-child of the Wikimedia Foundation," but he's too impatient to wait for DRV, so this is an out-of-process recreation of deleted content. Night Gyr 01:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You guys are great at assuming bad faith. I actually created this article prior to the request for undeletion of the other article. Check the timestamps. And I certainly didn't create this article to prove a point. I honestly did not believe that the ban against memorials applied to simple lists of names (but perhaps other people believe differently). I did not think there would be any controversy about either creating this article or undeleting the other one. It is you, in fact, who have violated policy for not assuming good faith. Kaldari 02:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I also don't appreciate my words being taken out of context. If you read my entire request for undeletion, you'll see that I even say that I created this article first "to test the waters," not as part of a debate or to prove a point as you have accused. Why are you trying to attack me? Kaldari 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The Wikipedia is not a memorial guideline says, "It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them." I don't think the article in question addresses sadness or honor; rather, the means of their demise was highly notable and a comprehensive, verified list of their names (and number) is part of the factual history of the highly notable event. -Ikkyu2 03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andy Saunders 02:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG's citation of official policy. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:01, Jan. 26, 2006
  • Delete per nom. incog 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a memorial. Speedy keep vote is entirely inappropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. Do you guys consider Kent State shootings to be in violation of WP:ISNOT for listing the names of the four students who were killed? I'm just trying to get an idea here for what constitutes a "memorial". Kaldari 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Kent State shootings does not merely list a number of non-notable deceased people. --Ezeu 03:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I saw this argument on a different memorial list. There is no separate list of Kent State deceased like this article. Ruby 04:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JzG. 23skidoo 03:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redirect - The main Wikipedia space is not for memorial lists, but there is a specific place for this: Here - this list definitely belongs there, and does not need to be repeated here. Eurosong 04:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons listed above. WP isn't the place for these things. goatasaur 04:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia should cover important events in detail. Golfcam 04:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: would be fine as part of an article on September 11, 2001 or American Airlines Flight 11, but the information doesn't belong in a separate list like this.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 04:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the other fundamental problem with a list like this is, what do you do with it? It's not really an article you can edit - it's already utterly complete. One might as well just permanently protect it on the grounds that nothing of substance can ever possibly be added or removed, and only vandalism is likely to occur. It's not a living, breathing encyclopedia article, but rather a stock, unchanging list of people who died in a past event. FCYTravis 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is full of lists like that. How about 77th Academy Awards nominees? I don't see how it being a static list is a valid criticism. Kaldari 05:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. I'm going to go ahead and speedy delete under G7. It looks like I created this article prematurely, as I didn't realize it would be so controversial. I still believe that the revevent policies are too vague on this subject and do not provide clear guidance. Until this issue is sorted out elsewhere, however, I will go ahead and remove this article. Kaldari 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 01:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Moore (enterprise software)

Created by User:Dbmoore and reads like a resume. Gamaliel 01:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Most notable claim is that he holds software patents, and I don't agree that software should even be patented. Ruby 01:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sufficiently notable on his own. Mention him in SAP AG.--Ezeu 02:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per Ezeu. Jawz 02:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ezeu. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Resumê or corporate website/ annual report biographical entry. Doesn't demonstrate notability of subject. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "Stand and delete! I want you to hand over all the lupins you've got." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, riding down the street / Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore, delete, delete, delete. . . -keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 18:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ezeu ComputerJoe 21:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Zoe. Punkmorten 17:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Moorhead

~Non-notable, non-signed hopeful. Please play again. Denni ☯

  • Delete Vanity, being invited to football camp don't mean your notable. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Johnny may be varsity, but his biography is strictly junior varsity. Ruby 01:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete with unnecessary roughness -- nn-bio Night Gyr 02:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. --Ezeu 02:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedied, nn-bio. Note that the original author had removed the AfD header. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disney-Pixar Studios

Yes, Disney bought Pixar yesterday...and baby Jesus wept. However, there was no mentioning of ay name changing or new names for any studios; the particulars of the deal have not even been all worked out yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FuriousFreddy 01:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. hateless 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. 69.231.248.250 04:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 02:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ikkyu2 02:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Bwithh 02:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Brokenfrog 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The article which started this page stated that Ed Catmull will serve as president of the new Pixar and Disney animation studios. This was interpreted to be a new combination studio: ie: "Pixar and Disney animation studios". This is likely to be false, as the statement is ended with studios. It most likely refers to Pixar animation studio and Disney animation studio, as the article in question stated that the main point in the negotiations was that Pixar would retain it's current identity seperate of Disney. MetaFox 05:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as copyvio. --Deathphoenix 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarbanes Oxley Training

Looks like some marketing attempt to snag people looking for material related to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 —Mulad (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd call this a speedy delete. Obvious spam, probable copyvio. Night Gyr 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons. -Ikkyu2 02:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad/spam. —ERcheck @ 03:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — yeah, total pee arr marketin'. — RJH 16:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Anyone who could write a sentence like "Compliance training plays a critical role in achieving compliance" seems unqualified to teach anything. Smerdis of Tlön 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I speedied this article as a copyvio of this, this, and this, among others. --Deathphoenix 21:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penurbia

Only 12 Google hits for penurbia. The article doesn't cite any references. Nothing links to it. dbenbenn | talk 01:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable neologism. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:58, Jan. 26, 2006
  • Delete neologism. Melding of penumbra and suburb ? Ruby 02:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for above reasons, and also because this is a non-encyclopedic dictionary entry. -Ikkyu2 02:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. --Terence Ong 10:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above ComputerJoe 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so redirect to Podcasting. Because this is no consensus (with a potential to be AfDed in the future), I won't even devote a sentence to Palmcasting in the Podcasing article. --Deathphoenix 01:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palmcasting

Non-notable neologism for some yet unthought-of variation of the podcasting. Delete if at all possible. Otherwise merge. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:56, Jan. 26, 2006

  • Keep Palmcasting has 197 hits, it's just new. Give it a chance to rev up. It's not a hoax, for what it's worth. Ruby 02:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and include a sentence in the main article on podcasting. It's not enough of a significant phenomenon to warrant its own article. Night Gyr 02:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to podcasting. Mention it there -- Astrokey44|talk 02:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Palmcasting has 197 hits. Create the article if it becomes notable.--Ezeu 02:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, failing that merge + redirect to podcasting. So is this how words are made up now? Put it on wikipedia and hope it revs up? --Timecop 02:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant was, this podcasting techology is changing so fast, by the time this AfD is archived, palmcasting could be the new way for people to blog and it will be in Time and Newsweek and what-have-you. We can establish that palmcasting is at least not a hoax, and let the article lie fallow, and make a final decision in a few months. Ruby 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Astrokey44. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - pathetic... Cptchipjew 04:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. incog 04:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, always a chance to recreate the article if this ever catches on.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 04:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - made up word, 100% non-notable -- Femmina 08:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Terence Ong 10:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Astrokey44 -Chairman S. 10:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this, nn. Eusebeus 11:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect it and mention it in the list of podcast-related portmanteaus. If it ever revs up (sorry, couldn't resist) and is worth an article, it can subsequently be started then. Proto t c 11:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per Proto ComputerJoe 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. N-- JJay 23:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you like to have the honors of expanding it? --timecop 06:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How kind of you to ask. And what a great honor coming from a fearless leader such as yourself. I'd ask for your help, but your user page informs me that you are dead. What a shame. -- JJay 07:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't feed the trolls, timecop. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:05, Jan. 28, 2006
  • Delete not notable --凸 06:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Try back a year from now, let's see if it's notable then.. --Depakote 12:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We have podcasting. We don't need palmcasting. Completely uninformative, useless and (as others have stated) non-notable. Every combination of technologies does not need its own buzzword and article on wikipedia. Viscid 06:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 19:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Yang

NN Script writer, IMDB shows only 1 credit MNewnham 02:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You didn't need to go to all the trouble of an AFD. Speedy Delete, nn-bio, no content. Night Gyr 02:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 03:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. *drew 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:42, Jan. 26, 2006

[edit] Taker Syndrome

Nonexistent disease (and a borderline attack page to boot). —Kirill Lokshin 02:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, hoax bordering nonsense. No relevant hits on Google confirm this. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 02:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Patent nonsense. -Ikkyu2 02:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as bollocks. --Ezeu 02:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a solid gold BJAORN. Grandmasterka 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No backup on google. Yes, I actually wasted the time to look. Phantasmo 02:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've had this syndrome more than I care to mention. Grandmasterka 03:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax. Original research. Non-notable pathology. Take your pick. Ruby 03:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - bollocks. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A6 --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:BJAODN -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense. *drew 05:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense; not even funny enough for WP:BJAODN. -Rebelguys2 06:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per everybody above. --Lockley 07:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:BALLS and terribly-written balls, too.  (aeropagitica)  07:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by User:Zoe. Punkmorten 17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Nance

notability not asserted

  • Speedy delete, CSD A7, already tagged. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 02:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedied. nn-bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, also redirecting to A1 Grand Prix. --HappyCamper 04:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A1 racing

Advertising for racing tipsters MNewnham 02:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valentino mckenzie

appears bogus. I tried verifying the info in this article but came up blank. (the main Bahams government site is giving errors though so perhaps something's on there. The most recent election results I could find (2002) here show someone else as elected for pinewood. Hirudo 02:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Being elected to parliament in the Bahamas (population: 294,982) is like being elected to the city council in Santa Ana, CA (population: 293,742). Ruby 03:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- possible hoax. Bahamas government site for Parliment [4] does not include anyuone with the name of McKenzie. —ERcheck @ 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax: apparently this guy is also a teen idol. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as hoax / vanity / nn / bollocks / unverifiable, take your pick. --Lockley 06:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was all roads lead to delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Roman Roads Project

Assignment, nothing which isnt already covered in Roman roads -- Astrokey44|talk 02:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this is someone's sandbox that escaped its cage. Ruby 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 03:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Information already exists, delete this school essay as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Send this one down the Roman road (or any road). Logophile 09:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting author, whose first edit was 25 January 2006 and most edits are to related articles. --Deathphoenix 02:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Valley News Net

The link on the page to the Valley News Net site does not work. Going to theottawavalley.com and doing a search for "Valley News Net", the first hit is a blank page. Googling on "Valley News Net" brings up 61 unique hits, but most of those are not for this news service. If you do a search for '"Valley News Net" Ottawa', you get 6 unique hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Claims that it was "put on the map" by bloggers. How about being put on the map by good journalism? Ruby 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete I am the news director for Valley News Net which is part of TheOttawaValley.com. We are a legitimate news source for the Ottawa Valley and are well recognized in our area. Yes we were put on the map by bloggers but it doesn't mean we don't have good journalism. I corrected the link to the site and it works now. There is no reason this page should be deleted. I should add that we are still very new, we only launched the site in November 2005.User_talk:Tovnd
    • Thank you for making my argument for me. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this article is to be deleted for non-notability, it would make sense to also delete Hendrik Pape for consistency. Both say pretty much the same stuff. --Rob 20:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Boven

What do I need to do to be notable?Boven 15:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What does NN mean?Johnsonrkingdro 08:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It means "not notable" See Notability -- Astrokey44|talk 13:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a NN teacher. Kareeser|Talk! 02:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Don't Delete...I think this one deserves a chance. The American Heraldry Society does great things.JohnJohnsonrkingdro 08:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete former president of a heraldry society which formed in 2003. Ruby 03:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. kjetil_r 03:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 05:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stillblade

Vanity article of NN "MC". Article creator's account has same name as article name. Article has been deleted before, see User's Talk Page. Kareeser|Talk! 03:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete And hanging out with Osama is just one of my reasons. Ruby 03:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Makemi 03:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I guess this is supposed to be funny, but it didn't make me laugh. At any rate, it's obviously a hoax. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Useless. User Stillblade also tried to remove the AFD notice a little while ago. Tronno (talk | contribs) 03:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Stillblade donated his kidney to canibals in Fiji after being shot nine times in the war on terror. --
  • Keep Stillblade is for the children. Tax
  • Delete per nom. Also, the delete tag keeps getting removed. Don't fear the Reaper 04:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. As Reaper said, the delete tag keeps getting removed: [5] --Lightdarkness 04:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Wait a second, if it's been deleted before, can't we speedy it? --Lightdarkness 06:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as recreated article per WP:CSD See Block Log: Stillblade --Lightdarkness 06:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 19:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cooley'd

Nonsense... this isn't urbandictionary! Kareeser|Talk! 03:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as an attack page created by user blocked as an impostor. Gamaliel 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freespeechstore

NN website, vanity article... Kareeser|Talk! 03:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Should be deleted, has no real purpose other than tweaking Scoville. Duskglow 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Except it's true. Babs Schwartz posts on FSS all the time, unless Scoville is posting as her? Given that he should be at least a footnote under Barbara... Note Bab's is his only real supporter.
    —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.196.244.219 (talk • contribs) .
  • then make him a footnote under Barbara, and open that can of worms instead. This page has no legitimate purpose, as is obvious by the first cut of the page, which I altered to be a little less inflammatory. Duskglow 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Alexa 854,212, which is in the gutter by my book. Ruby 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedy if possible as non-notable website and partially classifies as an attack page. SYCTHOStalk 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with the speedy deletion. And to anonymous commenter above, wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Set up a google group if that's what you want. 71.128.23.212 03:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto. He's even less notable than he is angry and threatening. --maru (talk) contribs 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, without shame. -- Andy Saunders 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow others affected by a true internet k00k to discuss their experiences. Anyone favoring deletion has no idea what Scoville and the freespeechstore have done to many innocent people. THey should be ashamed of themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rscoville (talk • contribs).


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Kurt Copeland Show

Delete Vanity ad about a two-month-old podcast. Vslashg 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Podcasting is about as notable as my pet rock was in September of '75. Ruby 03:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nom. Maybe later. – Hillel 06:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  08:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Asus. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asus w3

A single minor computer line is not sufficiently notable for a separate mention. This can easily be merged into Asus. Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect -- and merge anything useful into ASUS - Longhair 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect — Looks like somebody bought a w3 and wants to tell the world. =P Kareeser|Talk! 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect in order to prevent this article from being recreated.  (aeropagitica)  08:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect --Terence Ong 11:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jenn Bane

Google has never heard of this person, nothing leads me to believe this is anything but WP:BALLS. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. Bunch of nonsense. — TheKMantalk 03:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It reads like some strange Livejournal entry. Don't fear the Reaper 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even if it's true, being the wife of an athlete is no big deal. Ruby 03:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think that this is WP:BALLS but it does appear to be unverifiable. Can the author not say what the subject's outstanding achievements in track and field were? What sort and how notable is her reportage?  (aeropagitica)  08:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. She's 20 years and seven months old. The claim that she is a "journalist and writer for many newspapers such as the New York Times" is far beyond dubious. StarryEyes 09:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity or hoax. --Terence Ong 12:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy. -- RHaworth 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todesfaust

Seems nn, top google his is their myspace. Was listed under WP:CSD, which I felt it didn't fall under, so I'm listing it here. Therefore, I abstain. Greg Asche (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable band. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete CSD A7, "Only a demo, East of Eden, has been released" Ruby 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: I listed under CSD. Doesn't even assert WP:BAND but a quick investigation reveals it doesn't meet it anyway. Only demo releases for this fledgling band. And half the band left anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per Ruby, tagging as such -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per A7. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silencer (band)

  • Delete: Non-notable band. Only released one full-length album before breaking up(?). Therefore, this doesn't adhere to two-album rule in WP:BAND. Allmusic.com has some bands named Silencer but I don't think this article matches any of them. Amazon has just the one album. Article attempts to assert its notability or else I would have WP:SD. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The only numbers the article gives for sales is 50 copies in one case and 200 in another. Ruby 04:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 12:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete {{nn-band}}. Stifle 16:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Mushroom 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winter of Apokalypse

  • Delete: Non-notable band. Only released one full-length CD instead of the two required to satisfy to WP:BAND. Allmusic.com and Amazon have only the one album. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article attempts to assert the band's notability or else I would have speedied. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if former member Lustmord is the one-and-only Lustmord, but delete if its another Lustmord. Ruby 04:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is one of a zillion little black metal bands that got started in 1999. Lustmord has been doing electronic music since the early 80s. I'm guessing the chances of them being related is about 1% (unless Lustmord is one of this band's members' father). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Thy Infernal + Winter of Apokalypse = WP:MUSIC. --Rob 05:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I assume you're referring to Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable. Note the phrase "extremely notable". Thy Infernal is extremely notable?! I don't think Thy Infernal would even survive Afd so how can they be extremely notable? They don't even have an article here or else maybe I'd vote to redirect there. Actually, I would vote Weak Delete on Thy Infernal and Winter of Apokalypse combined. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I see the two together as one topic. I wouldn't make a stand-alone article on either band alone. I think one band name, should redirect to the other (e.g. old band, to this new band name). The phrase "extremely notable", in context, is necessary if you want *separate* artices for each band/group/person (as opposed to a merge). Combined they are a keep. --Rob 05:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
        • So really you don't vote to Keep. Proposal: if you create a decent Thy Infernal page, then we can both change our votes to Merge to Thy Infernal. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Why would you merge to the older band. I never said Thy Infernal was more notable. I said, that combined, they are collectively sufficiently notable. Given the current name is Winter of Apokalypse, that's probably where info on both belongs. Thy Infernal is now a redirect. Also, I've been able to add a few links, but it will take a person much more knowledgeable of this "music scene" to write substantial content (My next expansion of a musicians article will be for a pop star, not "black metal"). Even though I think the article meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines, I won't mind if it gets deleted. --Rob 14:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm just doing math - Thy Infernal released two full lengths (in fact, I've even heard one of them) and this band has only one. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 05:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete {{nn-band}} Stifle 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a speedy at all. The CD release, plus former members of a prior band, which may together qualify as WP:MUSIC is sufficient to consider this matter, without a speedy. Speedies are for cases where something is likely unconested (outsite of original creator). --Rob 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge per Rob. Kappa 16:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wolfsschanze (band)

  • Delete: Non-notable band. Only released one short EP and a couple demos which doesn't adhere to the two-full-length-album rule in WP:BAND. No mentions on allmusic.com or Amazon. Official website is currently down. Article attempts to assert the band's notability or else I would have speedied. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wknight94. Ruby 04:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wknight94 and also per verifiability. - squibix 17:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Stifle 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Mushroom 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 17:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheople

This is just a glossary entry for a slang term. There's already a Wiktionary entry for this. Just not encyclopedic. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC). Redirect per Thesquire, below. Should have done my research.  :) Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merged & Redirected I hope that's okay 24.85.83.170 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capital (magazine)

This artical should be deleted.
Wikipedia is not a phone book

Delete, completely not notable; a cursory Google reveals only 419 hits for ' "Capital magazine" Dublin ', and none of the first 30 refer to this magazine. --Andy Saunders 04:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP is not a rolodex. Ruby 04:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Stifle 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn. incog 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast Chatter

Dicdef at best Ezeu 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - This is no different from Broadcast chatter which does not have an article. Ruby 05:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 06:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete podcruft/dicdef/neologism/etc. no potential for expansion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:53, Jan. 26, 2006
  • Delete - per nom. non-notable, boring -- Femmina 07:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 16:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mostafa Abdel Moity

Possible Vanity Page JaManna 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity Page JaManna 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Asserts he helped found a "school" of painting called the Experimental Group in 1958, which would be a genre like cubism or pointillism. Ruby 05:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's an assertion that is not necessarily true, do a web search to see if such a group exists or not. JaManna 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, you're the nominator, you give me something more than "possible vanity page" Ruby 05:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He is an artist living in Egypt, but there is not such thing as "The Experimental group" and if so, they had no visible effect on Art neither in Egypt nor the World; to make this poerson wikiworthy.
  • Speedy keep. Not vanity. Likely bad faith nom as this was nominators first ever wikipedia edit. --Ezeu 05:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
why is a first edit automatically considered by you to be bad faith? JaManna 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well...because it takes a while for most people to master the three-stage AfD process! Ruby 05:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Not ture, I was browsing the list of Artists, and I found many names that were on the list that didnt belong there, and I kept the ones that have had a true impact on Art like Gazebeya Serry ... The Three Afds are in place, because the artists in question are possible just promoting themselves. JaManna 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
My bolshevik meter is going off the scale. Most people try their hand at making small changes to articles they know about, then maybe write a stub from scratch to see if they have learned the wiki tags. NO ONE executes a technically flawless AfD as their first edit ever. Ruby 05:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
An Egyptian born in 1938 is not likely to be writing vanity pages on Wikipedia. He could, but it is not likely – hence my assumption that your motivation for having this article deleted is bad faith. That your first ever edit on wikipedia is to nominate an article for deletion merely stenthened my assumption. And I also spent a few minutes on google. --Ezeu 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ezeu. Wisco 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the article's facts are true/verifiable, he meets the notability guideline criteria as a longtime professor of art. I'd suggest that the nominator review those criteria. -Ikkyu2 06:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • notability guideline criteria Quote from the page "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." I don't think that just because he was a professor of Art he could be considered wiki-notable. 82.201.212.220 07:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • What about: Vice Minister of Culture, Director of the Egyptian Academy in Rome, recipient of the State Appreciation Award and more.--Ezeu 07:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I was simply asserting that he passes the "professor test" mentioned on that same page. Don't bite. -Ikkyu2 20:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Quote from the page you mentioned; "He becomes member of the World Congress of Contemporary Art in Venice, in 1985, and is elected Vice President the same year. He occupied the post of Head of the Egyptian Academy in Rome in 1988." Anyone can be a member of a Congress, by either paying fees or getting his office to pay them for him, I don't know where you got vice-minister of culture from! Also, a government Job for a year, doesn't make you an outstanding international figure. JaManna 07:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Look what it did for George W. Bush. Now, sir; you are overly contentious. Pray keep a more civil tongue in your head. Ikkyu2 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Examples of the artist's work are easy to find (here, for instance: http://www.zamalekartgallery.com/en_exhibition.php?exhibitionID=53&artistID=13&availiable=). Let's all play nice, don't forget to assume good faith, don't bite the newbies. --Lockley 06:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Among other things, he was Commissioner for the Egyptian pavilion at the Venice Biennale 2003.[6][7] Clearly an important person in Egyptian art. u p p l a n d 08:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, clear evidence multifactorially (Google, links as above) of his contributions to Egyptian art -- Samir Grover 09:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Hideous art, but notable artist. What's the correct spelling of his name, though? --Agamemnon2 13:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I disagree, I like his work, but I don't consider it to be "important" art ... what he does, people like [| Miro] had done before him and with much greater effect
  • Keep per Ruby. --Andy Saunders 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Stifle 00:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rabab Nemr

Bad Page + Vanity JaManna 05:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Collected works in many exhibitions and museums. Ruby 05:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
if keep, then the article must be made wikiworthyJaManna 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Comments are wikiworthy when they are signed Ruby 05:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about the article or me? JaManna 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Not vanity. Likely bad faith nom.--Ezeu 05:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
A conspiracy theorist :). JaManna 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The advanced degree, list of exhibitions and departmental positions suggest this person is at least as notable as the median professor of art. -Ikkyu2 06:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep but in any case, I have tagged the page as a copyvio MNewnham 23:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. The two keeps were made based on the possible motives of the nominator while the six valid deletes were made based on the merits of the article. --Deathphoenix 02:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ragai Karas

Vanity, non-existant artist JaManna 05:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to point out that this artist scores around a hundred hits on Google, so what exactly does the nominator mean by non-existant artist? (That being said, not being listed on Google doesn't mean you don't exist either.) — Hillel 06:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously not Notabl
  • Weak keep - not a great article, but the nominator somehow knew how to execute three syntactically perfect AfD's in a row as his or her first edits on Wikipedia, which suggests the nominator has been here before and might be doing this from ulterior motives. Ruby 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have been here before to understand how wikipedia works, but first time I do any editting and that is why I registered. And by the way, thanks for calling My First attempts "perfect" ... Obviously you are not so objective, you are voting to keep a lousy article based on the fact that for some reason you don't like me JaManna 07:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD A7. The article asserts, in toto: guy has a bachelor's degree and paints in watercolor. This isn't notable. -Ikkyu2 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable.--Ezeu 07:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't judge whether to keep or delete based on the nominator's edit history. Judge on the article's merits. This is obvious vanity. StarryEyes 09:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I suspect a bad-faith nomination. Nominator Jamanna's only activity on Wikipedia has been to nominate several Egyptian artists for deletion today, and some of the other ones seemed entirely unfounded, bordering on the speedy keep. Until shown otherwise, I would recommend to give the benefit of the doubt to the article, not to the nomination. Lukas (T.|@) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well I am just someone who knows about the Art Scene in Egypt, and this Artist is simply not notable at all. The other two I nominated are more notable, but Mostafa Abdelmoati is not notable enough, and Rabab Nemr, in addition to not being of enough significance to the Art World has a rather weak page. JaManna 07:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Bad faith nomination doesn't make Karas any more notable Ncsaint 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Terence Ong 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete Work does not seem to appear in any reputable collection MNewnham 22:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic abortionism

Orphaned article, no references. All google hits I could find seemed to be derived from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm plugged into what they are saying on Err America and I haven't heard this. Ruby 05:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism rule, recreate it over at Wiktionary if needed. Calwatch 05:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. If there was a verifiable citation that could be added that proved this term had entered debate in a notable way - i.e., in a periodical circulation > 5000, or on a major TV or radio show, or used repeatedly by a notable author, I'd change my vote. But examining the article history makes that seem unlikely. -Ikkyu2 06:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Unless verified, per Ikkyu2. I have heard this point expressed, but not the term. Logophile 09:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tony. Proto t c 11:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologistic, personal essay. Marskell 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. --Terence Ong 14:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all. *sigh* --Deathphoenix 02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges

Seems to be a list of nn locations Wiki is not. Makemi 05:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to add all the subpages the same user added, so that each doesn't have to be "voted" on separately? Makemi 05:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ugh, there are like a million and one of these, and some of them are pretty old. I've added a bunch, but there are a bunch more. I'm not sure why these have stayed this long. The organisation may be notable, but certainly listing every single lodge in the country isn't appropriate. Here's what else I've nominated under this so far. Makemi 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • List of BSA local councils and districts in Georgia
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Georgia
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Delaware
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Connecticut
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Colorado
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in California
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Arkansas
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Arizona
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Alaska
  • List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Alabama

I've nominated the rest of them. I don't think it's necessary to list them all here -- just use "what links here" or look at List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-26 08:47Z

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 05:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (change mine to merge into history-by-state) as we are merging and codifying these as part of ScoutingWikiProject. Chris 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • How is the end result supposed to look like? I am happy to change my vote if you can show me that this will produce something that will be okay with WP:NOT a directory. Kusma (討論) 06:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • We are working at turning the corresponding Council list into histories of Scouting by U.S. State, which will be a long process, as I've heard there are are a lot of states. ;) Chris 08:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Then you should create articles about History of scouting in California, not directory-style lists. If these lists help you to do the work, they should be in project space, not article space. Kusma (討論) 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I think Kusma makes a good point, the Scouting project can use the info, but I have to admit it'd be better if it weren't a bunch of short lists.Rlevse 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
            • I am going to take each state list and add to each existing article (e.g., Scouting in Alabama), especially the GA and FL, which are more than just lists. I am new at this, and my only concern is that the authors for GA and FL don't lose where they went. Go ahead and delete, I have copied them so I didn't lose them before I had a chance to merge them. May take me a couple of days. Robhmac 21:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all these pages. One external link on Order of the Arrow to [8] is sufficient and should be more useful than this massive collection of non-articles. Kusma (討論) 05:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all the list pages - as it currently stands, these lists will never be able to be anything other than directories. If individual lodges are notable enough, they might be worth mentioning as part of their council's articles (assuming the council is notable enough on its own). Possibly creating Area/Section articles may be more appropriate for such grouping attempts, as more can be said about larger groups. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Compare this to the jillions of cricket articles that eventually get incorporated into something more realistic. - Jaysus Chris 06:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Certainly nice to see my old lodge up there, but WP:NOT a directory. -Rebelguys2 06:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or move to a better category? Sorry, I'm new as this. I just added 40+ states to a pretty stagnant page. Didn't mean to create such a discussion, or make so many edits. Overwrote an AFD when I finished one page. Instead of deleting, could it be turned into a specific category?? Speaking of directories, Wiki is the best place to look up, for example, TV episode guides. Robhmac 06:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm personally inclined to keep all of the OA lodge lists, but I really don't see them becoming more than just giant lists. (and my lodge isn't listed)(found it!) A link to the http://www.oasections.com website on the Order of the Arrow article seems like a better idea. — TheKMantalk 07:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as listcruft, unencyclopedic. External link from OA article should be good enough. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-26 08:34Z
  • Delete. I previously voted to keep one of these lists, but on closer look I think its better delete them. They are just too too cluttery. If any of the listed lodges are notable enough to have articles written about them, categorize them instead – that is what categories are for. --Ezeu 09:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ncsaint 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Categorize or delete I agree with Ezeu, and I added most of the pages to the four states that where there at first. Any volunteers to categorize?. Robhmac 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. WP is not a directory. --kingboyk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a data dump. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete all except List of BSA local councils and districts in Georgia (councils should be wikified and deserve artcles e.g. Aloha Council) --Jiang 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete every single one. Wikipedia is not a directory, they're highly unlikely to be searched for, and they are list articles which appear to be of use to only a very limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 08:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wiki is not. --Brian1979 22:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, the ratio of valid keeps to deletes is 1:2. --Deathphoenix 02:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godawful fan fiction

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because you read a message on http://www.godawful.net, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 135,274. [9] 6,160 Google hits. [10] NoIdeaNick 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Who cares? Non-notable. -Ikkyu2 06:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Godawful is the first notable website on the net that elivered negative views and reviews on fanfiction, it even predates the creation of Fanfiction.net.
  • Delete per nom. Makemi 06:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - while I agree that fanfiction is Godawful, so is their alexa ranking and overall relevancy -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  08:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Knowing the original sources and the reasoning behind some things, such as "snarking" may be useful for people who do not know what a snark is, and also can reduce "chinese wispers". Kopilo 09:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A huge, whopping total of 11 sites link to it! Confusing Manifestation 11:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. You know, I don't think people volunteer their stuff to be made laughing stocks of, so surely that's an attack website? --Agamemnon2 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Many of the members of GAFF post their own works and ideas on GAFF "to be laughed at". Kopilo 10:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a non-notable website. Also inaccurate, as it implies there's fan-fiction that isn't god-awful. Lord Bob 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is Lord Bob's opinion that all fan fiction is God Awful and is not stated in the fan fiction artical on Wikipedia that it is. Kopilo 10:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • User:Kopilo does not exist, comment was made by User:203.59.2.35 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The site has been noticed by several news publications. I have added the links to the article. SCharon 22:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A quick glance shows that the notice in the Guardian and New York Times articles is just that: a notice. It's a list of webpages related to fan fiction and this site is on the list, neither more nor less important than most of the others. Merely 'being in the paper', in the opinion of many, does not confer notability. Lord Bob 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Fan fiction. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a notable website within the fanfiction and livejournal community. It predates fanfiction.net itself, is the father of fanfiction snarking (once a niche in the Internet, now a common occurrence), and has been mentioned in numerous publications both on and off the web. Wikipedia has articles on communities that were arguably inspired by, or are outright 'spin-offs' from GAFF. It fully deserves an article of its own. There is no logical reason to delete it - not being personally interested in the subject matter is not a logical reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.177.168.160 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. It's the oldest, if not the most infamous, website of it's kind. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Godawful Fan Fiction (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a notable website and a rather balanced article, and there is no real reason why it should be deleted. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 64.42.105.124 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The "attack" concept is misguided. The point of the site is to allow people healthy release so that when they do give criticism to authors, it's constructive rather than destructive. Telling authors that their work is being attacked on GAFF is frowned upon by the community. In addition, it has moved more into a "general" discussion forum for other things that could be godawful (websites, movies, novels, popular trends, etc.).Spotts1701 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whatever else you think of it, GAFF IS an important piece of the history of 'fan fiction', as it was one of the first places of its kind. It deserves a place here. Ghost 05:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you're going after "non-notable" articles, there are far more to start with than this one. Google and Alexa ratings are not the sole determination of whether something is worthy of study, especially when you don't use the right search queries for the job. As per your own guidelines, "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia [...] Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." Aside from that, Squire seems to have a grudge. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 72.139.233.217 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note on Meatpuppet Attack: their forums are having a mild discussion on the deletion merits of this article (free registration required), which explains where all these anonymous and new chappies are coming from. While this doesn't seem to be calling out the vote, it is clearly, intentionally or not, acting as a magnet to draw keep votes from members of their forum. Also, I get called an idiot. Hee hee. Lord Bob 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep You'd be surprised the kind of influence that site has had - both negative and positive - in a large section of the fanfiction subculture, notably and especially on the largest fanfiction archive on the net, FanFiction.Net itself. With thousands of members, though, most of whom have at least a cursory familiarity with fanfiction (if not actively reading and/or writing it on a frequent basis), that should not be surprising. Plus: it was actually reviewed in the New York Times (positively, I might add), as part of an article on fanfiction. A special mention in an article from the New York Times is not "merely being in the paper", I'd say.

Lord Bob: you were labeled by one user as that precisely because you are letting your bias seep in - and rather obviously, at that, as it ("Also inaccurate, as it implies there's fan-fiction that isn't god-awful") was clearly an opinion, not fact. "Non-notable" is certainly up for debate, it seems, but "all fanfiction is godawful" is PURE opinion. Additionally, had you read the entire page in question, you would had noticed that it does not "imply" anything about the quality of fanfiction in general, it merely states that Godawful Fan Fiction was the first site dedicated to mocking badly-written fan fiction, and is a source of controversy in the fanfiction community. As such, I'd say it deserves a mention, if obscure comic books (such as Zodiac P.I.) deserve one. There are plenty of things that are less "notable" than the subject of this entry, and it seems to be quite balanced and neutral. Again - I vote keep, at least for now. Runa27

It was a joke. If I thought that all fanfiction sites should be deleted, I'd have put fanfiction.net up long ago. While stating such an opinion in serious form would be...stating an opinion...this was an obvious opportunity for light-hearted humour. I have in fact written bad Star Wars fan fiction in the past, for what that's worth. For that matter, even if I did hate all fanfiction, I'm not stupid enough to think that's a deletion criteria. I think Scientology is stupid and I wouldn't vote to delete that. Lord Bob 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. That Alexa ranking is actually not that bad and there's something to be said for being that old a website on this topic. Article is not horrible. The meatpuppets are also unusually articulate and on topic :) - Haukur 02:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as godawful. Influenced by sock/meatpuppets. Stifle 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keepas I've seen to many people with personal vendetas against certain Websites (IE: Stardestroyer.net) force articles into deleetion simply on the grounds of not liking either their methodologies, or policies. It is utterly assinine, and is a behavior that is being repeated here. Majin Gojira 21:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I know that I personally only nominated this page because wikipedia is not a web directory. I certainly don't have any agenda against fan fiction. The only question at hand is whether and internet forum with 3,200 members deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. If there were a consensus in favor of including such sites, I would not have nominated the article. I wouldn't have any problem with the page being turned into a redirect to fan fiction, as per Radiant. I also wouldn't have a problem with the page being merged into another article, if anything worthy of mention can be found. The problem is that almost all of the information, when sourced, is sourced to godawful fan fiction itself. I think UncleG summed it up pretty well in a recent comment on the talk page of WP:WEB. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites)#Alexa rankings. NoIdeaNick 21:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As has been noted, the website is well-known and has been around for quite some time. -GG Crono
    • If Cassandra_Claire gets one, then hell, why not "an internet forum with 3,200 members?"
  • I've reconsidered this a bit, and while I'm not sure that an article on this subject has a place in Wikipedia, after considering what else is out there in Wikipedia I'd rather take the cautious route and keep the article, at least for now. I know that people want to remove "cruft" from Wikipedia, but if there are enough people who find the article useful, we ought to be careful about our decision. And plus, I'd think that if there can be an article on each and every Pokemon, then we can be pretty liberal about what we let in Wikipedia, as long as the articles are well sourced and not vanity. NoIdeaNick 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep Most of the reasons given against it are assinine and even goes against Wiki's standards. Last time I checked, googling and checking hits wasn't the sole determining factor of keeping pages, not to mention the senriority and overall influence it's had on large fanfiction communities. Claude 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 02:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Learning Gain

The content of the article appears to be not verifiable. As far as I can tell "Learning Gain" is not a theory (psychological or otherwise) that has been published in an academic source. Nesbit 06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Delete — This article claims to be about some so-called Learning Gain Theory that has zero hits on Google. I'm not a fan of the Google test but in this case its really too obvious. — Hillel 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What CSD are you claiming this falls under? As much as I'd like to speedy this, I can't find a justification. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right. 1. I thought at first this qualified as a hoax, but hoaxes are no candidates for speedy deletion, and 2. I now realize this is more probably WP:OR. Changed my vote to Delete. — Hillel 06:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Doesn't quite make sense. Same author as 'Relative Time' which I listed for AfD below --Lockley 06:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sort of a mini-essay. Ruby 03:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forkheads

Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 464,635. [11] About 12,000 google hits but the vast majority seem not to refer to this website. NoIdeaNick 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Vslashg 06:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, website vanity, poor Alexa rank, no significance explained. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Article talks about them being kicked off a host for being naughty, so lets kick the article off of this host. Ruby 03:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Stifle 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relative Time

Delete. This brief explanation of the theory of relativity falls somewhat short of encyclopedic. We could merge to Relativity but better to delete, I think. Lockley 06:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this garbage. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing here worth merging. Vslashg 06:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Relativity. No point in merging. -Ikkyu2 06:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And the time is near to Delete this. Nothing here worth merging. Redirect is good. Rewrite (if it must be merged) is good too. Jawz 06:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Relativity. - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs
  • Delete as well-intentioned but useless and inaccurate.Ben Kidwell 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As this is not what time dilation in relativity is, please do not merge. I don't think that a redirect would be helpful, since it seems to me that a reader wanting to look up something on relativity would most likely use "relativity" as the search term. Doctor Whom 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete bad bad article, relatively speaking. Ruby 04:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep / withdrawn by nominator, article is moving in the right direction, initial concerns no longer apply --W.marsh 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shallow water blackout

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. W.marsh 06:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Can the author prove it is his own work? This PDF contains the text and says The following article was published by Swim SA in the February/March 2004 “sa swimmer”. The article was originally copied from the internet. But the PDF don't have the pics so it is not a copyvio from the PDF. -- RHaworth 06:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Recreation of deleted article, per WP:CSD G4 See Block Log: Shallow water blackout --Lightdarkness 07:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ignore the speedy delete - W.marsh who did that delete now accepts the repost and has brought the article here. -- RHaworth 07:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Good enough for me :-) --Lightdarkness 07:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion and weirdness, I should have pointed out in the nomination I decided this should come to AfD (and restored the deleted version, though I don't think there were any differences). --W.marsh 07:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep providing not a copyvio, but rewrite slightly as "what happens and why" rather than "how to avoid". The urge to breathe is triggered by high carbon dioxide levels not low oxygen levels is a very encyclopedic fact. We also need an article on Chain-Stokes breathing which is related but happens to mountaineers. -- RHaworth 07:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Primary author. The pdf article referred to in Swim SA you will note is by Jeremy Watson, I am Jeremy Watson and I wrote it for the Northern Territory branch of the Surf Life Saving Association for teaching purposes after two unexplained drownings in Darwin , I expect it will appear multiple elsewheres, I have no idea where, I know it's in the USA. I wrote it because I have not seen a clear explanation elswhere. I am a divemaster. I have now substanitally rewritten this for a different audience, hoping its closer to Wikispeak. Ex nihil 10:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but {{cleanup}} and {{wikify}} as the page needs to be brought up to the WP standards for articles.  (aeropagitica)  08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Primary author I have rewritten and wikified about as far as I am able. As the original author I think I've about finished with it. Comment welcome. Ex nihil 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is coming along. It is a very important topic--one of the most important on Wikipedia. I have verified it through Google and added a category and external links (not signed in at the time). Logophile 10:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Impressive progress in the past few hours. KrazyCaley 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable, notable. Nice artwork to boot! Ifnord 14:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jawa_Machines

band does not meet criteria (i wrote the article) Jawamachines 06:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Would be speedy under CSD G7, except that others edited the article, adding templates questioning the notability of the band. Bravo to User:Jawamachines for learning and respecting WP policy. -Ikkyu2 07:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, but if we can get confirmation that those albums weren't put out by a major label or notable indie, we can speedy it under CSD A7. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bravo, indeed. StarryEyes 09:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn solo artist. Ruby 04:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STPRI Hysteria

Non notable phenomenon, 9 unique google hits, ones with context appear to be forums and blogs. Delete as unverifiable, non-notable cruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:46, Jan. 26, 2006

  • Weak Keep as a verifiable example of mass hysteria comparable to Monkey-man of New Delhi. --Lockley 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - comparable to something not very encyclopedic -- Femmina 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete While something akin to the article's description does appear to have happened, this is a minor incident that hardly deserves its own encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 11:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The references are all forums and blogs .8 of the 11 references are from the same blog. A further two are exact copies of one of these stories, but then hosted on a different blog (note the reference on the Farshores.org one). I wouldn't really consider these verifiable, and they are not backed up themselves by anything reputable or verifiable. It's supposedly the true story about a couple of students playing a ouija board game that (cough cough) 'led to the calling up of 43,000 djinns' and 'one student being exorcised'. It's teetering on the edge of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. If it hasn't been made up for Wikipedia, it's been made up somewhere along the line. Proto t c 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Proto you've convinced me, thanks for your opinion. There's a difference between describing an incident of collective hysteria, which is valid and encyclopedic, and buying into the premise, i.e. believing in monkeymen and djinns, which is not. That's what I was trying to convey above. --Lockley 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn crap. incog 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn made up junk Cptchipjew 02:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-verifiable local incident. --timecop 06:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, non-notable. *drew 16:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. — TheKMantalk 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cherokee society

This article fails verifiability and much of its content is verifiably false. Waya sahoni 06:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • KEEP - fails WP:V. Some content may be salvagable but must be reviewed by a native Cherokee or reputable Cherokee historian. Appears to be a mixture of various native beliefs. Waya sahoni 06:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this afd. Waya sahoni 07:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The topic has the potential to become a worthwhile article, but needs to be looked over by an expert in the subject and seriously cleaned up. — TheKMantalk 07:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll clean it up, but most of it's content consitutes a POV fork of other articles. Also, much of it is taken from European mythology published in early Cherokee history which does not reflect the true culture. I can take a stab at it, as I am very familiar with Cherokee culture. Waya sahoni 07:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator's confused about the Wikipedia:Deletion policy; articles with "salvagable content" are not referred for deletion. Instead, they are edited for improvement. This article is well laid out, reasonably well wikified, fairly NPOV and cites some references; it should be improved via consensus editing. -Ikkyu2 07:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm certain the Novel "Gone with the Wind" is well layed out, Wikified, NPOV, and would also meet such a criteria, but its still a fiction Novel. Factual content is probably preffered about the culture, not cult new age theories". Waya sahoni 07:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have cleaned up and verified the information and corrected the bogus writings of this author. Content now matches and complements content in other Cherokee Articles. Waya sahoni 07:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WWE PPV Statistics

wrestling cruft, WP should not be a collection of useless statistics... kelvSYC 06:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, uninterpretable data. McPhail 08:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thesquire. Proto t c 11:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thesquire. --Terence Ong 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thesquire. (Man is there an echo in here?)--Toffile 01:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - pointless article. - Chadbryant 02:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - article contains information valuable to the professional wrestling community and likewise creates and maintains a small part of the Wikipedia standard of ethics and journalism that it has come to be known for. --George Jefferson Davis 03:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - article does contain great information. It should be expanded more however. --SFrank85 22:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The whole concept would be more useful as Wrestlemania statistics, Royal Rumble statistics, etc. Youngamerican 05:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atlanta Review Magazine

Stub entry about a non-notable magazine. No mention of this mag other than on their own web site, which also contains some dubious claims to international circulation. The claim to a feature article in the Sydney Morning Herald appear to be completely false. Kevin 06:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Terence Ong 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 15:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we get an ISSN showing a decent (5000-plus) circulation. Stifle 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to symphonic metal. Nominator says this is "untrue for the most part", but I don't know what is untrue. However, the contents of this article are still available those who know what's true and what's not to use to merge to symphonic metal. --Deathphoenix 03:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal opera

A badly coined term for albums listed as symphonic metal or variants of symphonic metal. Well written, but untrue for the most part. Gives a vague description of the indepth description on the symphonic metal page. A redirect should be left to symphonic metal Leyasu 07:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect per nom. \../. .\../ -Ikkyu2 07:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No merge, just redirect as per nom - everything is covered in better detail there. Proto t c 11:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. This doesn't need to be taken to AFD. Stifle 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stealth (webcomic)

I don't think this meets WP:WEB's guidelines for website inclusion... no coverage by good sources. The creator is a moderator (or something like that) on the webcomic's forum. --W.marsh 07:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. StarryEyes 09:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 13:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 15:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it doesn't meet WP:WEB criteria. And, yes, I frequent the forum. The entry for Mario Gully's Ant was started by a fan of the comic. Why is this any different?--JRCarter 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No claim of passing WP:WEB guidelines, I was unable to find an Alexa rank. Maybe Comixpedia would like this, because I couldn't find they had an entry on Stealth. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't see any compelling reason to delete the article. Keeping per JRCarter. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 16:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article may need some help, but after looking it over and reading a few of the reviews I think we should hold onto this one. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electric Avenue (software)

Non-notable program, see Results 1 - 7 of about 52. Basically link-spam, no real content. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:39, Jan. 26, 2006

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - advertisement, spam, no content, non-notable, blog-related, useless -- Femmina 09:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Freak. PJM 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was slow speedy delete by Chairboy as group of people with no claim to notability. Stifle 00:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GOW Clan

NN. Jwissick(t)(c) 08:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- nn clan. - Longhair 09:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ugh. StarryEyes 09:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 13:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable group. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Lockley 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-club}}. Recomment the nominator find some better reasons for deletion than "NN". Stifle 16:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mushroom 16:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital distraction

Neologistic non-article. It looks like the original author got 'digitally distracted' and forgot to finish this. Randwicked Alex B 08:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete neologism, hilarious comment =D. —This user has left wikipedia 11:06 2006-01-26
  • Delete neologism. --Terence Ong 13:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete O.R./neologism Ruby 14:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep the company, and keep the owner due to lack of consensus. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peanut Butter & Co., Lee Zalben

Peanut Butter & Co. is a sandwich shop and Lee Zalben is its owner. Articles created by Zalben (talk • contribs) (sole contributions). The cookbook [13] has a foreword by Jerry Seinfeld. Notable? I'm neutral so far; perhaps Lee Zalben should be merged to PB&C. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-26 08:51Z

  • Delete, vanity and also fails to meet WP:CORP criteria. --Terence Ong 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Peanut Butter & Co., Merge Lee Zalben, I think it does meet WP:CORP, quite a few articles on Google, referenced on FoodTV as notable for peanut butter sandwiches, but the Lee Zalben article should be merged. Some vanity though, agreed. -- Samir Grover 09:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment the listing of types of PB is probably much -- Samir Grover 09:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Peanut Butter & Co. but Delete Lee Zalben as non-notable vanity biography. —This user has left wikipedia 11:03 2006-01-26
  • Keep and Delete, respectively, as above. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'm going to be sick imagining a peanut butter sandwich bar. --Agamemnon2 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It's in guidebooks (even, I think, The Rough Guide). --Calton | Talk 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the company, but delete the dude's article. If I were ever to attend New York, I'd be dieing to see this shop..*sigh* but unfortunately, I gotta stay home..Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep Lee Zalben as well. Yes, he meets the standards now, I'd say.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 07:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep company, delete bio. I've been by there, but it was before they opened for the day, damnit, so I missed the chance. NEXT time I'm in New York, though... --Calton | Talk 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, we never thought making these postings would create so much discussion. Thank you for your comments. As the fastest growing national brand of peanut butter, we felt the company deserved an article. As for my own, I looked at the People Still Alive section of the Vanity test:

    Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more

    Our cookbook has sold well over 5,000 copies, and we have more cookbooks in the works.
    Whatever you folks decide, thanks for the opportunity to carve out a little piece of Wikipedia for peanut butter! --Zalben 03:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Alright then. If you're able to verify that, I'm willing to change my vote.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 10:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you can provide the ISBN of that book then we can verify it and cancel the deletion for you. Stifle 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The ISBN for The Peanut Butter & Co. Cookbook is 1-59474-056-9. Thanks! --Zalben 15:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. I have added some additional documentation. This guy just released his book a few months ago and created quite a buzz; as much as you can within the novelty food biz. Please reconsider your votes. I also ask that this AfD be given extra time since I feel that Zalben, who wrote the entry, simply did not understand the Wikipedia style and failed to document his successs as we would wish and not one other person in the Wikipedia community assisted him with the article until today. The aritcle was AfD'ed within hours of him creating it. He is obviously clowning around in the photo, but he is clearly serious about the business and the brand that he created. He has worked for 8 years to build his brand which is now distributed to 4000 shops. The book is reported by Amazon at a rank of #84,196, but note that this number is computed daily [14]. This guy's success did not happen by accident. -- Pinktulip 18:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep co., delete Lee Zalben as per above--Jiang 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Given the book sales, keep both. Stifle 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Although he seems to be a minor personality, he easily meets the standard. Sam Sloan 02:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omikse

A camp unit, and also eskimo spelt backwards. I was going to speedy this, but thought I'd check if any information herein is notable or not. -- Longhair 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Looks like scout vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. StarryEyes 09:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —This user has left wikipedia 10:58 2006-01-26
  • Delete non-notable. --Terence Ong 11:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cute marching song though. Ruby 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Torpedos

Delete nn band. They played only the London circuit, recorded no albums, then disbanded. --Bruce1ee 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, non-notable. --Terence Ong 10:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band , Google search for "New Torpedos" "phil lewis" -wikipedia has seven results, if the page is deleted consider putting up phil lewis for deletion as well. —This user has left wikipedia 10:55 2006-01-26
  • Delete per all above. [15]. PJM 12:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruple

dicdef, neologism, Delete StarryEyes 09:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, per wikipedia is not a dictionary Samir Grover 09:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Terence Ong 10:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • del for obvious reasons. --Ghirla | talk 10:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete take it to urban dictionary. —This user has left wikipedia 10:50 2006-01-26
  • Quad-ruple dog Delete this. Ruby 14:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 07:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splenic-flexure syndrome

Delete, no references in PubMed, not in major textbooks of gastroenterology, clinical spectrum overlaps irritable bowel syndrome, not recognized by most gastroenterologists -- Samir Grover 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Neutral. 1160 Google hits. Mentioned in the Merck Manual[16]. Needs source corrobation not to sound like original research. JFW | T@lk 09:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep 54,000+ Results for google search "Splenic Flexure", not a hoax, notable enough. —This user has left wikipedia 10:47 2006-01-26
    • Clarification - The Afd is for splenic-flexure syndrome. Agreed that splenic flexure is an anatomic term of great importance. My argument is that splenic-flexure syndrome is not recognized as distinct from IBS anymore by gastroenterologists. Maybe Merge might be better? -- Samir Grover 11:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Results 1 - 10 of about 1,630 for "Splenic-flexure syndrome" Ruby 12:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep looks notable or merge it. --Terence Ong 13:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Irritable bowel syndrome, and redirect. For what it's worth, I've heard this term used, rarely. -Ikkyu2 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oleg of Moravia

The article is a spoof by user:Nixer, whose inclinations for trolling are well known. No such person is recorded in prime sources. Please delete mystification. --Ghirla | talk 10:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as nominator. As an aside, anyone with a slightest knowledge of mediaeval prosopography may certify that children were never given the same name as their parents at that time. If both guys are named Oleg, it is the best evidence that they are not father and son. --Ghirla | talk 10:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep in the Russian version of the article there is a reference to Богуславский В.В. Славянская энциклопедия. Киевская Русь - Московия: в 2 т. - М.: Олма-Пресс, 2001, that sounds reasonably solid. If there is a version about his existance, the subject is probably encyclopedic enough abakharev 11:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And so? Numerous second-hand compilations are being published all the time, replete with misleading fake genealogies. No medaeival source mentions this guy. If you think that Boguslavsky is a source to be reckoned with, you should have written "Oleg is a person invented by obscure Mr Boguslavsky". Not every speculation that is written on paper or on toilet wall is notable enough to be reproduced in encyclopedia. --Ghirla | talk 11:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Let's see if better sources acknowledging Oleg's existence or non-existence would be unearthed during the AfDabakharev 12:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless Oleg fled after his own death, in which case that would be notable. Ruby 12:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. --Terence Ong 12:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems like WP:NFT but in any case unlikely and unverified. If a source appears, can be recreated.Obina 23:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bernd

  • Delete Nonnotable person. User wrote this article about himself. ManiacK 11:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Having assignments are not notable. Ruby 12:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 12:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity. *drew 15:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navreme

  • Delete Sounds like non-notable company advertisment. Written by User:Baumgartl who is involved with this company. ManiacK 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete strange ad, almost a biography of an anthropomorphized company that can be a "member" of something. Ruby 12:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad, nn company, --Terence Ong 14:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Deathphoenix as nn-band. Stifle 16:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I didn't realise it was listed here as well as in CSD, but yes, I deleted it as a CSD-A7. --Deathphoenix 03:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mankato (band)

Seem like nice guys, but vanity/non-notable band. John Fowler 12:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unsigned band. Ruby 12:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, per A7. [17]. Tagged. PJM 12:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete non-notable. --Terence Ong 12:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per above. Powers 14:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pink sock

Slang sex term. Almost tempted to speedy, but a Google check shows that the term is in use for some reason. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, neologism, not to mention the following: I did this to Scriv the other day (mentioned by the author in the article). —This user has left wikipedia 12:44 2006-01-26
  • Delete the article and add the term to Sexual Slang, if it's not already there. PJM 13:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or speedy. There IS a real term "pink glove" which relates to vaginal sex, but this is just an attack on somebody named "Scriv". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per above. --Terence Ong 13:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Neologism. I went ahead and removed the personal information. Logophile 14:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of above. James084 14:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to rectal prolapse. -Ikkyu2 22:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of groups of seven

Useless criterion, giving a random collection of things. delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge anything that isn't already there with 7 (number) and then delete. KrazyCaley 12:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. - Ikkyu2 16:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a list that is of interest to very few people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 16:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. List-of-listsruft. Youngamerican 05:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brent Downing

Delete. Non-notable local athlete. A quick google search shows that this individual did ok as a quarterback for a local Ohio high school in 2005, but has apparently been off the radar outside of that particular community. KrazyCaley 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 13:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 14:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete In fact, high-school athletes are probably speedy-delete candidates (unless, of course, they later go on to other things). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. Unless there's severe cultural differences at work here, I don't see that "played quarterback for his high school" is an assertion of notability. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garudadri engineering consultancy

Delete as non-notable company. Can't find any reference that allows it to meet WP:CORP Kcordina 12:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete fails to meet WP:CORP criteria. --Terence Ong 12:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Ad for nn firm. Ruby 14:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert, probable copyvio Stifle 16:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BinaryStar Music

  • Delete Non notable company's adverticement. ManiacK 13:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete With extreme prejudice, for the crime of going to the Binary star article and writing, "For the music production co., see BinaryStar_Music." Ruby 14:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 15:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KirouGallery

Not notable. No google hits. Advertising Sleepyhead 13:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. Logophile 13:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't show up on Alexa. Ruby 14:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Stifle 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akimasa Nihongi

This is another article from User talk:Jack71483. His Jack Hsu just got deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Hsu. Nihongi is as hard to verify and not notable as Hsu Defunkier 13:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable musician. Logophile 13:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 14:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Only 18 Google hits (and that's including WP and its mirrors), no IMDB entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was there's clearly no consensus to delete. Even if I don't count the "votes" that weren't signed, Mr Denni. Harrumph. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lissaexplains.com

Lissaexplains.com was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-28. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lissaexplains.com/2005-08-28.
  • Delete Fiftythree 13:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page, Advertising and self promotion. The article was 90% written by the girls mother and fellow administrator of the site. Hongkongdongle 20:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have no idea why this page was nominated. Notable, verifiable. From the site: My site has been featured recently in the Washington Post, and several other large newspapers here in the United States including the Chicago Tribune and the Wall Street Journal. It has also been featured in several newspapers all over the world, most recently (May, 2004) in the Malaysia Star. Ifnord 14:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Again, I'm puzzled by the nomination. The web site clearly meets Wikipedia guidelines for website notability as evidenced by high Alexa rank plus media attention by national newspapers. I note the nominator and several of the delete votes have only edits on this specific AfD which makes me suspicious of puppetry. Ifnord 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • In what way do you assert this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines? Nowhere is Alexa rank mentioned. If this site's Alexa rank qualifies it for Wikipedia inclusion, then you, Ifnord, have a lot of work to do - there are 29,999 other sites to be added. You'd better get cracking. And then, at the end of that process, you will have made Wikipedia into a Web directory, in direct contravention of the guideline you cited. -Ikkyu2 09:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Aside from Alexa rank, the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guidelines. Media attention suggests notability (CNN, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post). Thomas 9:17 AM 28 January 2006
          • Disagree. The media attention was likely trivial puff pieces about a trivial, non-notable site. -Ikkyu2 23:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
            • You don't need to hypothesize what the articles are "likely" to be. They are linked to from the article, and you can read them. Uncle G 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 30,713 rank on Alexa, great for a website made by a child. Ruby 14:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity page -- If you view the history of the article, most was written by a relative. J8675309 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This newly created user has made three WP contributions, all to this AfD. Turnstep 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ruby. Children creating website is something uncommon. --Terence Ong 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The POV was pointed out in the last discussion about deletion, and most of it was written by a relative- if it's not popular enough to be written by someone that visits the site on their own accord, it probably shouldn't be here.
  • Delete per the above unsigned comment. --kingboyk 17:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Re-voting as the discussion has progressed and re-opened. --kingboyk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non notable. -Ikkyu2 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete you gotta be kidding me. Eusebeus 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: An earlier AfD TimBentley 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think an entry made by the girls mother should stay here really. The girls mother has been co-producing the website all this time, so it's not like it's entirely the work of a child, and the mother was probably also the one to call up the newspapers to do articles on her daughter.
  • Delete an 11-year-old kid with a website might have been big news in 1997, but it's nothing particularly special now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the site is pretty notable, I have cut out most of the advertising. -- Astrokey44|talk 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ifnord. TimBentley 00:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Astrokey44, most of the cruft has been culled out. Calwatch 02:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, just like last time it was nominated. Denni ☯ 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - website appears notable enough -- Francs2000 10:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, notable. // paroxysm (n) 16:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

(Moving new comments to the bottom) NOTE: UNSIGNED VOTES WILL NOT BE COUNTED. Denni ☯ 01:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. 5:34 PM 27 January 2006 Its a good site. Very popular as well as well moderated.
  • Keep. Thomas 5:34 PM 27 January 2006 For reason stated by Ifnord. 500,000 + google hits seems notable enough to me.
    • Comment After further reading, this smells like a personal vendetta against the Web site author to me. Addie 15:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adrienne.daniels (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. LissaExplains 3:58 PM 27 January 2006
    • Note from Lissa at Lissaexplains.com One requesting deletion is actually a moderator that I removed from my forum considering his heinous behavior - the site was created by me alone, and the article was written by members of my forum. Relative is no longer a moderator, and really has as much to do with the Web site as all moderators do. I, personally, have never touched the article, and only recently noticed a slanderous comment within the article posted by two members who left my forum. I ran an IP search within my forum, and four users here are ex-forum members. This is an obvious case of trolling. 3:58 PM EST 27 January 2006
      • Comment I would also like to note that my above comment was deleted, and please, I do not want this immaturity to play out on the Wikipedia Web site. This is further proof of any personal issues held towards me, and please, if you have a problem with me, e-mail me, do not disrupt the credibility of the AfD process. 5:52 PM EST 27 January 2006
  • Keep Notable, verifiable per CNN, Washington Post. Jason 9:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Media coverage satisfies WP:WEB. Powers 17:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • whoah shit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.242.89 (talk • contribs).
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets website criteria #1. —ERcheck @ 01:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Andrew Lenahan Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page - how does the second voter (who didn't sign) know it was "90% written by the girls mother"? --M@thwiz2020 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Numerous articles in major media means this site meetsWP:WEB. Another one of the Washington Post's articles about the site is here. -- Dragonfiend 02:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep Notable, but oozes vanity... The Deviant 02:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable website with media coverage thus meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per prevoius AfD. Lbbzman 03:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as it easily meets WP:WEB, plus previous AfD still stands - no additional information / rationale offered. Actually, I'm calling this a speedy keep as nominator offered no reason whatsoever for deletion. We really need more than a signature. Turnstep 04:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Further, nominator's only edits have been to create this AfD. Turnstep 05:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ikkyu2. --kingboyk 04:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are three links right on the page to notable sources (Including CNN!) It's certain notable enough for wikipedia. --light darkness 05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It might "ooze vanity," but that's what the "edit this page" button is for. The website is clearly notable. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per comments above. If I was a cynic I'd say another case of "It didn't get deleted last AfD, lets keep nominating it til it does"....but as I'm not a cynic I wont.... Jcuk 08:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I am a cynic. Wisco 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Just as a site is made by a child doesn't make it notable. ComputerJoe 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This one is easier than most. Usually a lengthy search involving some effort is required to find the non-trivial published works from independent sources. In this case, they are handily linked to at the bottom of the article. (The article could be improved further by citing the initial article in the Australian newspaper, as well.) I've read the subset of the news articles that are actually legible, and they are not mere incidental mentions or web directory listings. The primary WP:WEB criterion is satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 10:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Meets WP:WEB. Nomination seems in bad faith. Englishrose 12:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Owner of the site tries to influence the voting. User Jessily that voted for delete received a per direct ip ban on her site:

http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia1.jpg Another user that editted the article was punished also: http://www.tuinslak.be/tmp/leia2.jpg Site owner admits it on the second screen. Two more users that either voted for delete or editted the article also went in problems. I think that the voting will be disturbed by these actions. If her site was good enough there was no need for these actions. This plus the other reasons stated above are clear enough for me.

Site owner banned my ip since she discovered my ip while i was editting my vote without being logged in. What a democratic voting proces! Dave83 16:23, 29 January 2006 (CET)

Comment: The process you are participating in is neither democratic nor a 'vote' in the sense that you are using the word. Refer to WP:DP for more. -Ikkyu2 19:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with Englishrose per above comment, bad faith nomination. Above user, please stick to the issue, which is the article in question.Jason 1128, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have heard of this website, and it clearly meets notability guidelines. Dave83, there is nothing wrong with banning a person who vandalized the site article from the site forums. SYCTHOStalk 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It wasn't vandalism. The article was updated to reflect the current state of the forum, and was factually accurate. Lissa is definately trying to influence the outcome of the vote by retaliating against those that vote against the article. I resonded to her first comment, but it was deleted. I pointed out that she was lying in her comments here, and since it was deleted, I feel as though she is being allowed to say what she wants (whether accurate or not), and nobody else is allowed to provide the truth- either because it will be removed or we will be retaliated against. If that's not "disrupting the credibility of the AfD process", I don't know what is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.49.0.178 (talk • contribs).
  • Keep. If CNN did an article, notable enough for me. --maru (talk) contribs 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. I'm also going to transfer the comment stuff to the talk page. Stifle 18:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aids Sandwich

A website that was invented on January 17th, does not appear on google and appears to be self promotion by the user who created it. Little here of encyclopedic value, imo. Francs2000 13:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Wikipedia isn't quite the forum for such information. --HappyCamper 13:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ruby 14:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. James084 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Vanity, WP:WEB (bye, WP:COMIC!), etc. RasputinAXP talk contribs 14:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, self-promotion. *drew 15:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Perhaps it is an internet phenomenon in the making, but right now it's just WP:NFT. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rulers of Jameer

Fictional world with no indication of notability. No info on author, medium, nothing. No google hits. See also King Olta Omela Lukas (T.|@) 14:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete. Per nom.Obina 23:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nomination. ×Meegs 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] King Olta Omela

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rulers of Jameer. Part of non-notable fictional world. Lukas (T.|@) 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nom.Obina 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – looks interesting; I'd like to read more, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not suitable for original storytelling. I suggest the author move this to their personal web site. ×Meegs 05:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Zanimum as attack page. Stifle 16:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is B.H.V

Poorly titled nn or vanity. Googled BHV and hacking, and found 24,000 hits, but much of it was gobbly gook and none seemed to point to this group. Esprit15d 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy deleted. It contained a threat towards someone. -- user:zanimum
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malcolm Hall

non notable researcher. I'd say delete Melaen 14:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks non-notable to me as per WP:BIO. --Spondoolicks 15:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficient evidence that his reasearch is particularly notable or influential. Doesn't have to be widely know, being invited to give talks at international conferences is enough for me. Average Earthman 23:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle 16:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justius Vitellius

Delete. This is a hoax. There actually existed a Roman emperor called Vitellius, but this is simply a fake. Panairjdde 14:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as empty. Mushroom 16:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asparagus soup

it's an empty article, Asparagus soup is on wikibooks .delete. Melaen 14:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Terence Ong 16:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD:A1 or A3, no worthwhile content. Stifle 16:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bert Peck

NN graffiti artist. Google search produced one result (with the word graffiti), a page that no longer exists. The article itself only asserts dubious notablity. Considered speedy, but there was some assertion. Esprit15d 14:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 16:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Goosey

Hoax. No such game as "The Mind of BioDog" according to Google search. Spondoolicks 14:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Game would not appear on google as it is not a published game nor is it intended to be. It is mearly a small project of mine from my first year. It has yet to be placed on the internet but it will be placed on the net in due course. This is not a "hoax" Lethalshadow 13:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I wish Lethalshadow all the best with his project but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a soapbox. This article does not, unfortunately, meet the standards of notability set out by Wikipedia. Stifle 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete with extreme prejudice. DS 15:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Ariel Green

Pretty much a textbook hoax. Esprit15d 14:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This has been speedy deleted and recreated several times now. Keep in mind, this does not meet our rather strict definition of patent nonsense. The article, while ridiculous makes sense, it is clear from reading the article what it is about. That said, it is a complete and rather obvious hoax. Delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as nn-bio. If this sort of thing isn't speedied then there's something wrong with the policy. --Spondoolicks 15:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I will not undelete this or nominate this for undeletion if it is speedy deleted again (I didn't undelete, but it was simply recreated by someone else), but being called in to the army at the age of 4 is a claim to notability? I suppose A7 could apply since the claim to notability is nonplausible, perhaps G3 (pure vandalism) could apply as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes it might be better to just ignore the rules. If I see someone using the wrong speedy template I replace it with a better one if the article warrants it. IF it's not an obvious nuke I AfD it, but this...drop the bomb. - Randwicked Alex B 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It may not actually be patent nonsense but it's definitely Complete bollocks. This calls for a Template:Db-balls. - Randwicked Alex B 15:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apocalypse theory

Original research, see talk page. delete. Melaen 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There are articles on the web by the person said to have created the theory here witchvox but a summuary of a non notable blog, that may or may not have been by the author is WP:NOR or a non notable theory or both. Obina 23:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR rubbish. Stifle 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsalvagable OR Thparkth 19:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Barclay

Hoax. Google has no results for a game named "The Mind of BioDog" Spondoolicks 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Uucp 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 16:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --ManiacK 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wiktionary. --Deathphoenix 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the red

dictdef that wont become anything more than that. transwiki/delete BL kiss the lizard 09:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that it can't be expanded. But in any case, the information was split from our In the Red article by User:Paul A, who evidently feels it does deserve an article. Rather than delete the content, why not merge it back in if we can't have it standing on its own? I mean no offence, but I feel a little research would have helped with this AfD. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
FIWI, I looked for an article at In The Red, but got a redlink, so i didnt know there was another article. i expected one there about the Richard Griffiths and Warren Clarke TV miniseries. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't, myself, have any firm convictions on the matter, except that the paragraph doesn't belong at In the Red. When I was deciding what to do with it, I found that User:RogerK had linked to in the red, so I followed his lead. (passes buck) --Paul A 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (back) and Transwiki. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:00Z
    • Please expend the 10 seconds or so to check Wiktionary first before nominating something for transwikification. Uncle G 12:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary had in the red for over a year and a half before the creation of this. This is a dictionary article about an idiom, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 12:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for asking me, Paul. I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm somewhat uncertain about the value of my comments here. The phrase "in the red" is, obviously, a metaphor, and has been in use as long as I can remember. It may deserve to be referenced as such in an appropriate and more expansive article. RogerK 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 15:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikitionary. --Terence Ong 15:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that a Transwiki isn't necessary, as there is already a Wiktionary article here. --Deathphoenix 15:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with the Wiktionary entry, then delete. The article in question is much clearer than the wiktionary entry. -Ikkyu2 16:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, redundant with Wiktionary. Radiant_>|< 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It has more info than at wiktionary, including the history of the term -- Astrokey44|talk 00:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant. Stifle 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge The information here is worthwhile for readers who want to become familiar with the phrase and its history. The phrase is commonly used by writers, reporters, and television commentators, to name a few, and is used and discussed in classrooms. I see no redundancy here, nor do I think deletion is appropriate. --RogerK 00:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perverse competition

Delete. Not a topic within economics Intangible 15:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Terence Ong 15:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, has google results. Gazpacho 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:GT - "perverse competition" economic has only 193 hits [18] -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thesquire. Stifle 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master hagaki

"Detroit-native" rapper who was born in Queens (?). Admired by Eminem, arch-rival of Ja Rule, signed to a seven-figure contract... but google finds about 29 mentions, mostly his Myspace page; allmusic has never heard of him; and he has no releases. Delete as hoax or as non-notable bio (take your pick). bikeable (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. *drew 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per drew, possible speedy as nn-bio. Stifle 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ars Silvera

For those interested in Occult research Chumbley is an important figure and the idea that a previously unpublished essay, by this deceased writer, is significant. This entry cannot be 'personal promotion', by the author, as he died in 2004.

"Privately issued" book. (9 google entries for "Ars Silvera"). Melaen 15:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete claims to original research too. Uucp 15:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research and vanity-published book. Stifle 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research incog 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinerd

wikipedia autoreferential article.delete Melaen 15:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to the meta-wiki thingy. This is very meta. -Ikkyu2 20:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all the other wiki-noun combinations. WP:ASR. Stifle 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. *drew 17:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Level 4 Productions

Orphaned article about a non-notable production crew, but they've got a myspace.com account [19]. w00t Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:41, Jan. 20, 2006

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 15:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

w00t Delete. Non-notable. -Ikkyu2 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as meeting the main non-notability criterion, a myspace page. Stifle 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of countries that issued stamps still

I haven't been able to make heads or tails of this article from the get-go. Notes on the Talk page and on the author's Talk asking for clarification, from me and from another contributor, have been ignored for weeks. If it's supposed to be a list of countries that still issue stamps, it it woefully incomplete: Moreover, that implies that there are countries which did, but no longer do, issue stamps. I'm not aware of any for which this is the case, and if there are, a List of countries which have ceased issuing stamps would seem to be a better way of addressing that. If it's just a List of countries which issue stamps, then it should be renamed, but it does not appear to me that that was the author's intent. As it stands, it is nonsensical and not at all helpful. Delete. bikeable (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Near-meaningless. I can't imagine any scenario in which this would be useful. Uucp 15:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. If I'd run across this page, I would have suggested speedy delete under CSD G1. Also, the external link gives the game away; it's a link to an online stamp dealer, i.e., advertising of a non-notable variety. -Ikkyu2 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, and there's something about that title that makes me just want to go chew on a lightbulb. 23skidoo 17:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -Doc ask? 18:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Uhhh... what? At best it's a hopelessly incomplete list (it includes Tokelau but not the USA, for example). It would likely serve more to confuse or annoy anyone actually trying to find information on stamp-issuing countries, so it should go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It makes my mind hurt. Miguel Cervantes 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have lost many nights' sleep wondering which countries still issued stamps. My day is much better knowing that China is the only Asian country that issues stamps, and the only other places in the world that they do, are Pacific Islands. Useless...--Adam (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Johnson

Delete. Not notable, possible vanity. User's only contributions are to this article. DR31 (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is most definately notable. Just because some people have not heard does not mean it is in vain. I personally think that we should give the writer a chance. As it says, they are releasing something to the mainstream soon. How can they fake that? Also, if you search your memory, one of the most successful rap groups ever, N.W.A, started off largely unknown until their 'Straight Outta Compton' album dropped. 16:08, 26 January 2006 (EST)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Dude, the nominator said so. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karen (Pokémon)

NOMINATION WITHDRAWN Concensus is clear to keep or merge, so I withdraw the nomination. --kingboyk 19:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC) Barely a stub. Not encyclopedic. Delete. kingboyk 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • In light of the discussion so far, I'm happy to go with a merge. If somebody would do the merge and let me know, I'll withdraw the nomination. --kingboyk 04:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think they should all go, but let's see how this one pans out first. Thanks for your input. --kingboyk 17:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, performing AfD on this article and seeing how it pans out is not a fair test on whether the other articles should go. You'd be removing them for being "Not enclyclopedic", where as this one has the "Barely a stub" criteria as well. If you wanted to see people's concensus on whether the other articles are enclyclopedic, I would have recommended you put one of them through AfD. (Please try not to take my comments as aggressive, from reading them I can see how they could be interpreted that way. I assure you, they are not) -- Deskana (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not a fair test and it wouldn't decide if they were deleted or not, that would be a matter for debate. The point is that if this one fails (as you say, it has an extra dimension of lame content) it would be pointless listing the others. Creating an AFD takes time as there are three pages to be edited, and debates to be monitored (I could perhaps have listed them all in one go, and didn't think of that :)). I don't think you're being aggressive. Anyway! I think we've each had our say, let's see what others think. --kingboyk 18:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll give you a quick preview of the results: none of them are going to be deleted, all of them are going to be merged (eventually). Merging them has been on the Pokémon Wikiproject's to-do list since it was founded, and progress is being made, if a bit slowly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Even if this RfA is valid, articles on subjects like this should be merged at the very least (see List of Johto Gym leaders for an example. Also see WP:FICT - specifically stating merge. AfD isn't the way forward. --Celestianpower háblame 18:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I did that, and someone reverted it, hence the AFD as an alternative. I still don't see why this character is important, however. See The Karen (Pokémon) Importance Test for how I found this article and why I have nominated it; it's being used as the very basis of 'non notability on Wikipedia' and as an argument for keeping other questionable articles ("Oh subject X is more notable than Karen"). --kingboyk 18:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge ≡ expanded soon. Punkmorten 21:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand or merge, per Celestianpower. If we're serious about keeping the notability about the Elite Four members, then it'd be wise to merge the articles with the currently present Elite Four article or split them into Johto Elite Four, etc. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong merge. I've long been in the process of merging stubs like this into lists (see List of Johto Gym Leaders for an example), but there are so many of them that it has been taking a while. 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_>|< 22:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned, it's only a matter of time until it's expanded like the other Elite Four articles. Notability of character is not in doubt, has appeared on the TV show, video games, and card game (probably the manga too, though I'm not 100% sure) and is known to millions. A Google search for Karen +Pokemon brings some 400,000 results. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but Merge until it has been expanded to beyond being a stub. Dr. B 06:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major adversary in a major computer game. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allied Nations (Advance wars)

The article is redundant, and has information that could be found in the series' respective game pages. 'Ivan 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge into Advance Wars; don't redirect. — RJH 16:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not a valid vote. To comply with the GFDL, a merge must always be accompanied with a redirect. Stifle 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as redundant gamecruft. Stifle 16:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael S. Bergin

Non-notable. Possible vanity. ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Uucp 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete never heard of him and I am native to the area (Binghamton, New York/Vestal, New York are the only 2 articles that link to him). I figured he might be a professor at Binghamton University but he's not listed in the directory. Most likely vanity. ccwaters 16:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • He's 20 years old according to the article, so very likely not a professor. :) --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, din't see that :), definitely vanity. Is that speedy material??? ccwaters 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:VAIN -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 14:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Kapustka

NN-Bio - doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. I added relevant links, but I don't think this guy will pass. <50 google hits, top rankings are self generated press release and listing service --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 23:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I got 2,590 Google hits. Punkmorten 12:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's weird. A "straight" search of (Joseph Kapustka) get 584 results [20], but a quoted search of ("Joseph Kapustka") gets over 3,000 [21], however I think the most relevant result is that combining the name with (piano) returns less than 100 results, most of it self generated. [22] I still don't think this guy passes WP:MUSIC, he hasn't sold many recordings, is "on tour" but with limited venues (100 people?). This guys shouldn't pass. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reflex Reaction (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete as unverifiable since there are no relevant references. A press release and a listing service where anyone can submit their info aren't reliable sources. Of the google results, only 45 of the first 1000 are unique, mostly from Internet message boards (in addition to the two references given in the article. - Bobet 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Cry

Incomplete nomination by 81.151.9.149. I thought it was a bad faith nomination, but on closer look, I think this is band vanity. Ezeu 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It is. Created by a former member of the band and maintained by a current one, the article was to be expanded according to developments in musical releases and events.81.96.24.229 01:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy - Lunar Cry look set to take 2006 by storm. Renata 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as currently insufficently notable. Ergo delete the other articles dealing with their albums/projects --Simon Cursitor 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete {{nn-band}}


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 14:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desiderata (EP)

Incomplete nomination by 81.151.9.149. This is an album by Lunar Cry, which was also nominated for deletion.--Ezeu 03:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if Lunar Cry is deleted, merge if not. Stifle 16:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC). I've done a bit of research into this fellow in hopes of expanding the article to show some sort of notability. I gave a great deal of weight to User:Wackymacs' argument that he was featured in the 1907 Nuttall Encyclopedia when closing this one, but it turns out that the Nuttall Encyclopedia Clark is not our fellow at all. So, my apologies for the error, it looks like it's a deleter after all. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Clark (yeoman)

only a a yeoman, not enough notable Melaen 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yo man, delete this yeoman (per: WP:BIO). Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 16:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand This is in the 1907 Nuttall Encyclopedia, seems to have some form of notability - just needs expanding. — Wackymacs 19:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Merchbow 19:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote but can someone explain why this apparent genealogy stub is notable for an encyclopaedia -- Simon Cursitor 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's more that can be said about him. Yeoman basically means "medieval middle-class farmer dude". Some were notable, the vast majority aren't. Just because a subject is centuries old doesn't automatically make it notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted as a copyvio. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kalisia

Delete: Questionable adherence to WP:BAND. No mentions on allmusic.com or Amazon.com. Article says they've only released an EP. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep I'm actually going to give a weak keep on this. There are a reasonable number of unique google hits on this group, and a recent news article on google news referring to one of its members as an "up-and-coming producer Brett Caldas-Lima"...also came across a couple of published interviews. Article needs to be explanded significantly however. Phantasmo 18:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is why fans shouldn't write articles. An apparently self-released EP doesn't make them up to snuff. Besides, cleaning this up would take a stick of dynamite. -R. fiend 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nothing at allmusic or artistdirect, only album is a demo with limited release in 1995. They don't even sell on amazon.fr. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Stifle 16:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's also a copyvio. Mushroom 17:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matze Schmidt

Delete self-written vanity about software programmer/artist. This is the second posting under this title by the same user; the first I speedy deleted as a hoax rewrite of Jaromil. Postdlf 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was Jaromils own writing not deleted? See -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaromil&action=history. Matze Schmidt 20:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I would have if it was a hoax rewrite of yours instead of the converse. List if for deletion as well if you think it is also vanity, but to my eyes at least it appears alright. Postdlf 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Mh, this is no convincing manner from my point of view. Why is a so called hoax-writing the reason for not deleting another self-written vanity - namely Jaromil's? And: I rewrote the article Matze Schmidt, so there is no motive for another deletion. Matze Schmidt 21:14, 20 January 2006 (GMT+1)
Others have raised the issue of vanity on his talk page, and I also don't like the fact that he wrote it himself. However, as the author of software that we have articles about, he's probably notable enough to keep. Once again, if you disagree, list Jaromil for deletion, and I'll consider your rationale and vote appropriately.
Your first post was a hoax because all you did was take his article, change the name to your own, and add "did not" wherever it said "did." Your second post doesn't appear to assert any notable accomplishments that would qualify you for an article. Postdlf 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha, no "notable accomplishments". And you decided that I/Matze Schnmidt am/is not qualified for an article on Wikipedia, right? This is beyond your function I guess. What the IS the "right quality", what are the right skills to have an article on WP and why should I start a deletion of Jaromil to get the logic right between the one and the other article? Matze Schmidt 21:27, 20 January 2006 (GMT+1)

I believe that this non-Edit war is a good example for explaining the logic and structure of an encyclopedia and of WP itself: If you argue that WP has already articles about Jaromil's software and take this for proof of his article about himself, the structure of the logic is _one article supports and proofs the other_ in an 'endless' chain or net. But to start a series of articles (chain or net) has yet another reason or basis, and this basis is outside the Wikipedia! It is based in the imaginations of authors about a person or works of this person. Now "author of works that we have articles about" is not a thing outside the system of WP, it is only to find inside the network of the texts. So the inside of WP and the outside of WP are connected in relationships of persons called authors and text related to texts about authors. Matze Schmidt 21:44, 20 January 2006 (GMT+1)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • the content can be moved to User:MatzeSchmidt or deleted. --Melaen 16:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and Delete nn enough to justify keeping this vanity project Eusebeus 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and delete per Eusebeus. Stifle 16:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 04:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headgear music

These guys don't seem notable. 289 google hits, nothing at AMG. Nothing to indicate fame by association either [23]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:36, Jan. 20, 2006

Keep There's a picture! BabuBhatt 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep They seem (he seems) notable enough. I think the band/project is simply called 'Headgear', so the low google hits are misleading. For that reason, the article should be moved to Headgear (band) (or some such -- not entirely accurate, since it's more of a one-man project than a band -- not sure what the naming convention for such cases is). Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 15:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - assuming it's all true - no reason to think not, but some sources are desperately needed - this band has had some exposure in a long-established music rag, and has been on teevee. CDC (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Deeper Googling verifies that this band is for real, but only one full length album and one EP published by the artist's own label doesn't quite rise to WP:BAND standards. If common play on RTÉ Radio 1 could be verified, this is probably a "keep" instead. Vslashg 20:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per david47 below. Vslashg 03:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per media exposure. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've added sources and a video of them playing on RTÉ. Thus, they have been represented prominently in at least three popular media: radio (rte on mystery train), tv (the view), magazine (hot press). There is a page on AMG, just nothing on it yet. Also, Google "hotpress headgear" and you get a ton of results, as headgear have been featured a lot in this major (for Ireland anyway) magazine (you can't look at articles though, it's subscription only). Watch the performance on The View (link on headgear music page), John Kelly himself says "I play them a lot on radio" - he presents The Mystery Train on RTE Radio and The View on RTE TV. More links and sources added, check the page again. david47 00:12, 28 January 2006 (GMT)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Hey hey, an A7 that actually applies! Who'd a thunk? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beervana

"At this point in time, outside of the Indie Underground scene, neither of these groups are very well known." Indeed, there are lots of google hits for a beer festival, but i can't find any for this band. The quote suggests why. Derex 15:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete by the author's own admission that they are not well known.--Adam (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete. Unlike their rival, they haven't released an album of any kind. Nothing on google about their hit song ("Lonesome Pines" + Beervana). ×Meegs 05:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn Batmanand 00:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can someone please examine these, too: Jack McKenzie, Davie Fletcher, The Sticky Wickets and of course, since the two are finally together, The Reunion Tour. --Perfecto 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Prodego talk 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. A search for Beervana Boston band came up with nothing to verify this see [24]. AfD tag is missing but I have added tag for speedy as non-notable bio. The article does not assert notability - indeed, as noted, it does the opposite. Capitalistroadster 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete this and everything else related to it (everything started by User:GusVanDean, who's currently blocked for vandalism). - Bobet 02:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already merged, so let's go a redirect. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Master of Management in Hospitality

  • Delete Not notable. Looks to be specific to a single school, which school is not named. Nothing useful comes up in Google. Uucp 15:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Hospitality management. Nifboy 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Hospitality management is an actual field in which one can attain a degree. However, this article needs to be cleaned up to a much higher standard of quality. As it stands, it appears to be tied to a specific curriculum at one school; the article needs to be more general in scope. Arviragus 22:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect. I did copy some information into Hosptality management since it makes sense to retain it. Vegaswikian 07:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zarina (porn star)

Do we need a aricle on a porn star? There is a filmography credit, but it seems NN. Kareeser|Talk! 15:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • There are plenty of porn star articles on Wikipedia, so the answer is "why not". In this case, however, the subject appears to be nn within the genre, so delete. 23skidoo 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, we certainly do if they are notable. As 23skidoo says, this one appears to be nn so Delete. --kingboyk 17:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obscure.Merchbow 19:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete way too obscure, no IMDB entry. Well, actually there IS an IMDB entry for a "porn star" by that name, but it seems to be a different one per the filmography. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the page is supposed to be called Zafira. There is a movie star of that name who was in these films. Can we rename during AFD?Obina 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Participating in the commercial sex trade is not itself notable. Monicasdude 04:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless a GFDL video can be uploaded for my personal verification. --JWSchmidt 04:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per 23 skidoo, though JWSchmidt has an interesting idea -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn bio. incog 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 14:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Athanasios Tsakalidis

un-notable computer scientist, potential vanity. delete. Melaen 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep — Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.
if NN deleting before a cleanup would save a lot of work. IMHO --Melaen 16:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This site lists 77 papers he has published. That's probably enough for notability. Weak keep. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Strip the padding and you end up with "visiting Professor" and "one of the 48 writers of a book". --Ezeu 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable. Stifle 16:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - again. DS 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)`

[edit] Green Weenie Wizard

Looks like polished nonsense. Google search brings up no complete results. Kareeser|Talk! 16:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Why in the world would you want to delete this article??? The green weenie is a great fly to use and the Green Weenie Wizard is a really nice guy. Jack DoGood
  • speedy vanity. or else userfy to User:Jack DoGood
  • Speedy Delete, as patent nonsense or non-notable, either of which is a valid criteria --Quintin3265 16:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

--Melaen 16:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berwin Blowhorn, The

This is not encyclopedic knowledge. The entry has no mention whatsoever in google, neither do several of the specific terms mentioned in the article. The user has moreover no history for serious contributions Jens Nielsen 15:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — Made me grimace. If you want, Le Pétomane is a much better article documenting the same phenomenon. Also seems NN Kareeser|Talk! 16:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete probably just failed humor. Not notable if true. Uucp 16:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete useless.--Adam (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2006
  • Delete. If there's not a category under which this can be speedied, there should be.--MayerG 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)(UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BlueRoads

Advertising. not notable Sleepyhead 13:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete per nom.--Adam (talk) 02:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, possible speedy as nocontext. Stifle 16:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 14:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buracz Bosnitz

No verifiable material. Girolamo Savonarola 20:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I believe this page was written as a corollary to List of the longest movies in history. The problem, as we've noted in the discussion page there, is that the information is almost completely without any evidence. A search for this director yields absolutely nothing in any language aside from reference to this work, and even then it is clear that every source has almost verbatim copied it from a single site. The technical details for the claimed "Longest Film ever" Film Stock are also incomprehensible - it is claimed that raw film stock was projected in massively quantities once, and then reused by others to make other films. This is impossible - you can't project the film without fogging each frame as it goes through the high-powered light beam of the projector. The film would be useless for any conventional exposure purposes. Unless something more substantive emerges, I don't think this article deserves inclusion. Girolamo Savonarola 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as not verifiable and probable "world's record" hoax. --Lockley 18:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lockley. Stifle 15:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Result : Speedy delete JoJan 16:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of schools in China

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete A country of one billion people, that's gonna be a mighty long list. Size right now? One red link. Oh well. --kingboyk 17:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless. Has been around for months without expansion. Punkmorten 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry, it was me who put this up in the first place, but I couldn't start this page since I was doing it from school (and didn't log in). Useless, and it's 1.4 billion people :P Andymc 20:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmaintainable list. *drew 22:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible.--Ezeu 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, useless, unmaintainable, and implausible list. -Rebelguys2 23:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless a good argument can be made to retain this. A list such as this is probably best maintained through the use of existing wiki categories. Silensor 23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is what categories are for -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The absurdity of this list (per Kingboyk) is almost worthy of BJAODN in its current form. --Malthusian (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD:G7 author request (above). Stifle 15:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neef

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The word neef is a vital part of many people's lives and vocabularies. The "estimated in the low dozens" is a joke. As with about the rest of the page. It's more like a hundred or so. Also, say neef to yourself... you know you love it. Now it has meaning. -The Creator of Neef —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.23.173.189 (talk • contribs) 22:28, January 26, 2006.
  • Delete as original research and WP:BALLS. Stifle 15:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POSitive Accounting

Advertising. not notable Sleepyhead 13:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising. Uucp 16:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Stifle 15:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uconn Dancesport

The location is unidentified. I assume at the University of Connecticut, in Storrs, but even the link to the home page reveals no location, not even after probing many sublinks! Suggest to {{subst:afd}} if no better information is provided.Carrionluggage 14:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to McCarthyism. --Deathphoenix 14:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reactions to McCarthyism

Delete. Article is a minor subdivision of a topic. It contains no unique content, so there's no point in merging it with McCarthyism KarlBunker 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Merge and redirect with/to McCarthyism. It covers topics that aren't in the main article. Also, it cites references; throwing out referenced work seems like a poor idea, especially since McCarthyism itself boasts zero - that's right, a whopping zero - references. If merge and redirect were impossible, I would vote Keep. -Ikkyu2 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Reactions" has a "further readings" section which would be worth merging with McCarthyism (I'll do that shortly). And if there are any facts buried in the jumbled writing of "Reactions" itself I'll merge that too. But there can't be more than a sentence or two that's worth adding to McCarthyism. Since nothing except a Talk page links to "Reactions", there's no need for a redirect, so it seems a "delete" is the simplest action. KarlBunker 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • After merging, redirect rather than deleting to preserve the edit history of the material from this page. - squibix 02:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Why? The history of this article, like the article itself, is a content-free meaningless jumble. KarlBunker 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the simplest action is not always the best action. Wikipedia:Assume good faith would seem to prohibit the total destruction of edits that were intended in good faith. Reading the article, I find, as you do, that it is not up to Wikipedia:The perfect article standards; and yet it is a referenced, carefully laid-out attempt to describe some phenomena that are external to the McCarthyism article. Others in the future may find content where you find a jumble; a redirect serves your purpose without totally annihilating this possibility. -Ikkyu2 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as original research. Stifle 15:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Article is referenced extensively. What more do you want? A pony? -Ikkyu2 06:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, fork. Radiant_>|< 09:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete obviously. -Doc ask? 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Sorosky

Vanity page. Article name and creator have similar names. Kareeser|Talk! 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete as non-notable bio. I tagged with db-bio tag. James084 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, agree with James --Quintin3265 16:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It does in a way assert notability, but I don't mind if someone speedies this. Punkmorten 17:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Punkmorten. As silly as the claims seem, they're still claims. PJM 17:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Susan Harris (Invasion of the Bee Girls)

Character from a B movie. All relevant information on the character is contained in the movie article. —Wrathchild (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Any useful snippets from this article could be added to Invasion of the Bee Girls. PJM 17:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Stifle 15:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mudgik

defunct MUD. Doesn't appear particulary notable, also NPOV. Does a guideline for MU* notability exist? Melaen 16:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • To the best of my knowledge, no such guideline exists. Might not be a bad idea, though. At any rate, a perusal of this article reveals nothing interesting except some fairly neat, but still unencyclopaedic, code tricks. Delete. Lord Bob 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic. The information is interesting, though; someone should preserve it somewhere else. - squibix 12:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as mudcruft. Stifle 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wyvern (Online Game)

MUD in beta test. probably Not Notable. Melaen 16:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (such as video game guide). Also nn for reasons of nom.--Adam (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, so very, very, very few beta and pre-beta MU*s are notable, and this is not one of them. Lord Bob 21:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condorcet-Hare Method

Non-notable voting system, most likely an invention of the article's author. 0 Google hits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

My nomination now also includes Condorcet-Smith-Hare method. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's also Condorcet-Smith-Hare method. Condorcet and Hare both check out, and the author of this page looks responsible to me. This is more a candidate for a verify tag than deletion. --Lockley 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete per Peyna's research. --Lockley 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm pretty sure we deleted something very similar to both of these articles a few months ago, but I can't track down the AfDs. Peyna 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I located the related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Condorcet_Instant_Runoff_Voting. Peyna 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's another related past-AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Condorcet_Approval_Instant_Runoff_Voting. Peyna 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The content of Condorcet-Hare Method looks very similar to what was the content of the aforementioned pages that were previously deleted. Would need an admin to verify that for sure. Peyna 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do we need an admin? Do admins somehow inherently know more about voting systems? As the original nominator, I can confirm that a similar method has been proposed before. I don't know if it's the same proposer. It actually makes me want to write a page called Hybrid voting method, describing how many "new" voting methods can be created by combining rules from different methods, and how such methods are rarely used in actual voting. Then we could just speedy redirect this kind of thing there. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Admins can view deleted content and confirm that it is the same content that was posted before. Peyna 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As far as I know, the Australian Democrats use a Condorcet-IRV hybrid method, the so-called Hallett system [25]. Markus Schulze 00:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting - I didn't know about that. So there should be an article on Hallett's method, not this guy's reinvention of it. I guess that can be done by renaming and rewriting. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • According to Australian electoral system, the electoral system used is instant-runoff, which is non-Condorcet. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I was talking about a political party that is called Australian Democrats and that uses the Hallett system for internal referendums. I wasn't talking about Australia. Markus Schulze 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, speedy if possible. Stifle 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both articles. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Juice (studio)

Article is about a satellite tv station (studio?) broadcasting hard-core porn, and claims that it's the first such station, which would be notable; but it's (apparently) currently not viewable except via the internet, and has received no news coverage at all (per Google news searches for "Blue Juice" pornography and "Blue Juice" television). There are very few relevant Google web searches, as well. I suggest that, at present, this studio is both unverified and non-notable. - squibix 16:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Dreighton Triangle

NonNotable starwars battle. appears in a videogame. delete. Melaen 17:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
quote:Not much is known about the battle, except that both of the fleets mysteriously disappeared.

  • Delete, insignificant, unexpandable. Average Earthman 23:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as starwarscruft/fanboycruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as interesting only to dedicated fans of the genre, i.e. fancruft. Stifle 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Balamak

non notable Star Wars universe battle. Melaen 17:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There doesn't seem to be any claim of notability. Even if there was a Minor Star Wars battles to merge this to, it hardly even seems notable enough for that. As a side note, I think this article was copied from Wookieepedia. -LtNOWIS 20:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as starwarscruft/fanboycruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as interesting only to dedicated fans of the genre, i.e. fancruft. Stifle 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Eredenn Prime

NN star wars battle. delete. Melaen 17:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, not encyclopedic. There is a real world of info out there needing expansion you know. Average Earthman 23:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as interesting only to dedicated fans of the genre, i.e. fancruft. Stifle 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, yeah I think this no real value to wikipedia, I was confused just looking at it till I realized it's about Star Wars. They don't even make mention of how it is a fictional event from a Star Wars movie. Marcus1060 19:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, missed this one - Delete as starwarscruft/fanboycruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 15:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Bomis Korri IV

NN starwars battle. "briefly seen in the mini-series" delete. Melaen 17:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable Clone Wars battle, detailed in the databank. Article needs improvement though. -LtNOWIS 21:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as starwarscruft/fanboycruft. What is this "databank" of which you speak? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as interesting only to dedicated fans of the genre, i.e. fancruft. Stifle 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but expand, I'd say if it's important enough to be listed in the databank on the official Star Wars website (which is highly selective of what information it contains entries for), it's important enough to be listed here
  • Merge: the Clone Wars battle cruft needs to be merged into a list, IMO. I'll be willing to take care of the merge, although the list may look awkard with the sheer amount of white space because of the infoboxes. My philosophy is that fancruft be merged, and then slowly improved as new users are discouraged from creating small articles. It also keeps information in one place. Alas, this is turning into an essay ^_^Deckiller 01:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 04:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Nivek

minor starwars battle . un-encyclopedic. delete. Melaen 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as starwarscruft/fanboycruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as interesting only to dedicated fans of the genre, i.e. fancruft. Stifle 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nerdcruft. incog 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Speedy deleted as nonsense/no assertion of notability. CDC (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr saul

Someone's personal creation, which has not spread to a noteworthy audience. Does the Clown College, Cambridge exist? Punkmorten 17:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Looks like a schoolboy attack page to me, including crude images. NN, not verifiable, etc. --Lockley 18:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've speedy deleted it as borderline nonsense, and certainly having no assertion of notability. CDC (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deepika Govind

  • Delete - Dead End, appears to be a advert. Chirags 17:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pretty much advertising as far as I can see. needs to be deleted.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment have tried to cut it down to the bare minimun and cut out as much ad speak as I can. What are the guidelines for fashion designers though? Jcuk 21:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Finally, someone designed a dress for those recently disemboweled, so they can look their best on the way to hospital to be stitched back together! Ok, ok... Google shows some results, including some press sources, but a grand total of only 84 unique hits has me underwhelmed that this person has made enough of an impression for an article just yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2nd Battle of Tythe

starwar battle from a web strip.I fear it is NN:delete Melaen 17:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per NN --Neigel von Teighen 17:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn.--Adam (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fancruft. incog 03:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as interesting only to dedicated fans of the genre, i.e. fancruft. Stifle 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Durin 14:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Next Syphillis

  • Delete There is so little evidence online backing the information in the article that I incline to guessing it's all a hoax. Can't find the band's supposed albums referred to anywhere. If it's real, I don't think it's notable. Band name is also misspelled, but maybe that's on purpose. Uucp 17:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Da GV

Nonsense. No meaningful Google hits for "Da GV" or "Garnet Vicinity", zero Google hits for "Garnet Street Vipers". User:Zoe|(talk) 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD A7. The only author of the page admitted the non-notability in the article text: "The GV came into existance in 2003, not much has happened since." Vslashg 18:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Delete per Sjakkalle below. Vslashg 19:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Why dont you just marry google? Just because people dont know about it or it hasnt got any "google hits" doesn't make it any less real. It's just ignorance thats what it is.

I've never heard of this place and I've been in Liverpool all my life. Explain more otherwise of course it will get deleted.

"Not much has happened since" doesn't make it non-notable. It means not much has happened since. Doesn't make Da GV any less an integral part of society in the slums of old swan.Daquios

Daniel: So a new place is born onto the map, and you people have decided to throttle it already? You have never been to the place yet you already claim it doesn't exist? Give it a chance.

Before considering its deletion at least allow me to develop the article into something informative and good and stuff. Its an interesting and important part of liverpool and not a lot of people know about it. Just let it be, let it be. There will be an answer, let it be. (sorry for the song lyrics at the end there) Trust me, no google hits doesnt mean anythin. Daquios 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you want to make this a better article about your group in Liverpool. The important consideration here is Wikipedia's policy about Verifiability. Articles should be about things which can be verified by other reputable sources. It's fine to want to let the world know about Da GV, and perhaps one day it might be notable, but until that day, Wikipedia is not the place to spread the word. Vslashg 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Finish the article before you post it. It's serves no purpose to anyone, doesn't inform anyone about the area and is filled with useless and stupid junk. "A few optimistic back room supremos have even suggested that they will win the UEFA Champions League by 2020." Who? Heh, if there's only talk about a team in the area, howcome pundits are already talking about them? Come on, put some effort in. Finish the article before posting.

Well let us at least finish it then. When its finished consider the deletion...

Or, you could finish it, then re-post it.

I could. But id rather not.

Then I support the move for deletion. --Church

  • Delete or Speedy Delete either way is good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:NOR, and if a good rationale can be found I'll even support a speedy. At the moment though, I think it'd be a stretch to shoehorn it into CSD A7. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ridiculous content, but it is not an article about a person or group of people, so it won't fit the speedy criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Da Lete. VanicruftsORpboxisement, or something. --Malthusian (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Da Lete??!! Oh wot is that? It may seem ridiculous, but its the truth. That old swan chief A-ca-oo-oo -aa may seem ridiculous but its the truth. Like the Toxteth triangle.

"nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism"

I refer the makers of this "information" to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day - please start writing some useful stuff.

it wasnt made up in school one day

Looks like it was. It's getting better, but for a whole area, it needs far more detail and depth.

  • As long as it's not officially recognised 'Da GV' is unlikely to be accepted as an article, but you might want to see if there's anything you could contribute to the articles on the areas that are officially accepted: Liverpool, Tuebrook, etc. --Malthusian (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of things on wikipedia arent officialy recognized

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Détroît Creole

Reintroducing French to Detroit.... Your choice: WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:BALLS and many othersMNewnham 18:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as NN. --Lockley 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Still in the process of being completed" and "hopefully will gain attention." Good luck with that. If and when it does, it will have an article. TMS63112 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sounds like a single person's toy project. Jorge Stolfi 06:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Stickman Chronicles

Delete as NN and vanity. For instance "At the age of 7, Mike invented a machine that would make its user able to see pure time. Unfortunately, seeing as each particle of time is shaped like a donkey fellating itself, the scientific World saw his invention as "stupid." One year later due to overuse of his machine, Mike was involved in an explosion that made him able to split time particles. " --Lockley 18:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NN and vanity as per nom. Vslashg 18:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as pure vanity, spam, etc. The "artist" freely admits this the webpage linked to from the article. Shouldn't this be speediable? Peyna 18:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete DJ Clayworth 19:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dielectric Communications

Doesn't meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Also, how do I request deletion of Category:Antenna manufacturers? Mikeblas 18:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as short article with no context. Stifle 12:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as spam, possibly speedy but that's a bit contentious. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Katrin Gapp

This is a knotty one. What we have is an unverifiable biography been blanked by someone claiming to be the subject. I reverted before the AfD, but I'm having trouble authenticating this. You'd think a Caucasian oil bigwig or his socialite daughter would have at least some media coverage, but I'm turning up empty. Agamemnon2 18:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable probable hoax. Peyna 18:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the father is notable, merge into his article. Stifle 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engines Can Do It

Appears to be a hoax movie article. No IMDb listing. Was initially blanked by a user who left a snarky remark. Was then speedied in error by me, thinking the snarky remark was the complete article (forgot to check the history). But I thought I'd give benefit of the doubt in case there are any Thomas the Tank Engine fans who know otherwise. 23skidoo 18:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete in any case as unverifiable and non-notable. Crystal ball and all that. The first Google hit for "'Engines Can Do It' thomas" is Talk:Thomas_the_Tank_Engine_and_Friends. - squibix 18:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, and it was removed from the Thomas page over a year ago it seems. Peyna 18:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No IMDb entry. *drew 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a ridiculous piece of wishful thinking on the part of someone who needs to grow up. Apart from anything else, the 'Ten Cents' character listed isn't even in 'Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends', he originates in the series 'Tugs'.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 15:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paperwaving

Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. Not worth saving in any event, Google returns 33 hits. Vslashg 18:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I would say redirect to pseudoscience but it doesn't seem like a widely used enough term. Peyna 18:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, Google actually only returns 23 hits in English, and only 6 of those 23 hits are unique and of those 6 unique hits, not one of them refers to what this article is talking about, but instead, to people actually waving pieces of paper to try to help prove their point. Peyna 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • changed my vote to Delete Jakken 20:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dicdef, neologism, unnotable. Take your pick. Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP the content (transfer the content, or at the very least reference the term in pseudoscience and/or fallacy, and redirect). Obey 03:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the above arguments to keep are paperwaving. Stifle 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok...should this then be regarded as actually a KEEP vote, or disregard it as disrupting to make a point or as an odd little ad hominem? Obey 03:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WP defn of irony: requesting observation of NPA in response to an initial comment wondering whether a personal attack has been made. To start afresh: it seems to me that characterising a mild suggestion to retain the content of the article somewhere (rather than assigned to oblivion entirely), as "paperwaving", is off hand; a flippant and unconstructive rejection of another's POV. And the explanation itself didn't seem very considered: "paperwaving" is the subject matter of the very article under consideration for deletion. So now that we have established that no one is making personal attacks, can you explain your vote to delete, if it is not a vote to keep? Obey 11:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
      • User:Stifle's initial comment was not a personal attack, unless articles have turned into persons. I wouldn't say your response to his comment was a personal attack either. Peyna 14:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Absolutely: flippant and internally inconsistent rejections of constructive suggestions are something else altogether. I've already supplied two other possibilities. Just awaiting now an explanation in response to my last (not that it can make much difference to the outcome seeing the numbers). Obey 16:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Any reassessments in view of recent changes? If not, I change sides. Obey 16:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Deathphoenix 15:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intellectual_rights_to_magic_methods

Original research: no external citations. WP:Point, WP:NOR, WP:V. No grouding in legal theory or legal citations. Pseudo-law.-- Muchosucko 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete merge anything that is verifiable with Intellectual property. Peyna 18:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't disagree with your comments about the quality of the page, but I don't think deletion is a useful resolution to those issues. This is an interesting page (I know nothing about magic and enjoyed reading) and has had several people contribute to it. -Jcbarr 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting is one thing, but please bear in mind that we cannot publish original research or things which are unverifiable. Peyna 19:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
There are references on this page which clearly provide verifiability. Certainly this article is someone's newly created words, but per WP:NOR, I'm not sure it qualifies as "novel narrative or historical interpretation". I'm not a lawyer and certainly not qualified to find the right references, but there are references listed here which make most of the statements in the article obvious. You could remove the parts of this article which seem to make assertions of law without deleting the whole thing. -Jcbarr 21:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The references provided are non sequitur to the thesis. The legal thesis on the page, if there is one, simply has no basis in law, but the authors refer to legal code to produce a pseudo-legal argument.--Muchosucko 22:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Added a couple of things to the page, as Muchosucko wanted--TStone 05:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The references provided continue to be non sequitur to the thesis. The legal thesis on the page, if there is one, simply has no basis in law, but the authors refer to legal code to produce a pseudo-legal argument.--Muchosucko 22:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOR applies to all articles without exception. Even the interesting ones. Lord Bob 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Magic (illusion); failing that, Keep. The topic is of interest, there are 3 pertinent external hyperlink references, and the text, while possibly not currently up to Wikipedia:The perfect article standards, is far from unredeemable. Magic (illusion) is a pretty sharp article; the folks who keep an eye on it would have the (admitted) flaws of this text whipped into Wikipedia-shape before you could say 'Hocus-pocus'. -Ikkyu2 22:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Flawed but interesting article on a good topic which has moved to the forefront as the walls of secrecy around magic methods have fallen in recent years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Surely there must be cases of actual intellectual property disputes with regards to magic methods. So put a cleanup tag up and get those documented. --TreyHarris 02:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm doing some cursory research and not finding much. First, to get a patent, they'd have to make their secret public after a couple of years, which would make it not very wise to get one. They'd be most likely to use trade secret protection, but as soon as someone reverse engineered it, they're through. Secondly, most of the stuff they do has been in the public domain for a long time, everyone knows it. Third, while they could surely copyright any of their performance, they wouldn't be able to stop someone from doing the same thing unless they wrote down the steps they took and then copyrighted it; however, at that point they're giving everything away again and since it would have to fall under "choreography" most likely, which would provide them minimal protection. I can no find evidence of anything aside from patents on specific magician devices and a case where Fox was sued for copying a show on another station where a "masked magician" revealed secrets. This article is merely speculation and original research. Peyna 03:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This issue has been dicussed to death by those ignorant of the law here: Talk:Out of This World (card trick) I'm afraid the simple fact is that the legal system and keeping magic tricks secret have no overlap. Blending the two is original research. No outside references are available.It is not a matter of "interest" or an argument: there is simply no factual value in this article because it is original research.--Muchosucko 04:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, David Copperfield has a team of lawyers that are working on things like this. They are quite tight-lipped, but I heard they won a case in France a few years back, I'm sorry I can't point you at a source and it might even be an urban tale --TStone 23:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is definitely encyclopedic. I'm aware of the NOR issues. Stifle 12:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I wouldn't be adverse to a move into the Wikipedia: namespace if no one can find citations. It gives us somewhere to point the folks who constantly blank magic-related articles (King levitation got the worst of it before being merged, but they've still got a fairly broad list of targets). —Cryptic (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into exposure (magic), remove the POV and OR. Samohyl Jan 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see four sections, all of which are entirely verifiable. Magic secrets are not covered by copyright, usually not covered by patent or trade secret, and are covered by the ethical standards of the magic community. What on this page constitutes original research? Kleg 18:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't disagree that this article could be better, but the topic seems encyclopedic to me. If you feel there is some original research, mark it or delete it. I found a book reference to the patent of Pepper's Ghost and cited it. The article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Mr. Know-It-All 23:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is interesting,it may need expansion or merging with another article but im against deleting the information altogether. It is usefull and expands the readers understanding of maical practice --Seth Turner 15:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Interesting article, no doubt about it, but subject to WP:NOR. Schutz 22:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The topic is interesting, but the article was horrible to begin with, stuffed with original research and claims that was untrue (like the silly idea that it was possible to patent a magic effect). The title of the page said "intellectual rights" but not a single word on the page dealt with intellectual rights - instead it was all about something as esoteric and irrelevant as "secrets", as if any creator in the field ever thought about "secrets" when their creations were stolen, their names stripped from the work and had to see how others passed on their work as their own. The whole piece were just fiction designed to justify the act of taking material from people that were unprotected by law to begin with. In this field, it isn't necessary with any justifications - just take the works from the creators, there's no legal obstacles in the way. First I thought I just should delete the mess myself, but I edited it instead. Didn't become much better, almost the same amount of original research as before - but at least something that reflected a reality, instead of a fiction. So yes! Delete the mess. There exists no legal intellectual rights at all for creators in this particular field of artistic expressions - and it is deceptive to have a page that seem to claim that there is --TStone 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 14:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creative slice

No mention of why this firm is notable; I see nothing more than an advert. [26] PJM 18:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Notable items have been added to this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timbowen (talk • contribs).
  • Delete. Corp vanity. Phrases like "notable work has been done" in the article show an attempt to push notability where none exists. Notability is something that should apparent without reading the Wikipedia article. Peyna 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advert. DJ Clayworth 19:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn & vanity --Brian1979 14:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myxobolus Haemosteomyelitisnarcosa

This article list no sources (reputable, disreputalbe or otherwise), a Google and PubMed search produce no references (1 404 page, and nada, respectively) And the implausible nature of the symptoms lead me to believe this is a hoax article. -- Larry boy 19:44, 26 January (UTC)

  • Delete per Howcheng. (disclosure: I also voted on this under Miscellany for deletion before it was moved here.) Mangojuice 20:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. 23skidoo 21:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but it made me laugh. Maybe it ought to be archived at Wikipedia:BJAODN. -Ikkyu2 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osokin

Delete / not suitable for Wikipedia / vanity page

  • Delete as NN vanity. Vslashg 18:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity, unencyclopedic.--Adam (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Andy Saunders 19:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity page. Stifle 12:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Scheduling. --Deathphoenix 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scheduling_discipline

Delete, because it doesn't add much to Scheduling, perhaps include the mechanisms there under 'Packet scheduling disciplines' SjoerdOptLand 18:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge per above. Peyna 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the article's merits, "scheduling discipline" is a term someone might search for. This is a clear merge/redirect, if editors on those pages agree. No need for AfD. CDC (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect per CDC. --Andy Saunders 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect per above. Useful, but not as its own article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect as above, not worthy of its own article and needs much better context. Stifle 12:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goerie.com

Delete - This is a Dead-end page which has not been edited since May 2005. I think this article was created as some kind of advertisement; the information given is of little use to anyone. Allthesestars 18:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete advert. --Andy Saunders 19:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ads. *drew 22:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 12:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this site is very valuable and the community resource for Erie, PA. It's the daily newspaper's Web site. I haven't updated the listing but will get to it very soon.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catalina Cruz

Non-article about another porn actress. Almost speediable as an empty article, but brought it here anyway. -R. fiend 18:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy. No assertion of notability. --Andy Saunders 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete on the grounds of no assertion of notability. She may in fact be notable in her field (embarrassingly, I've heard of her, and I'm not a connoisseur); but if so, the article needs to describe more about that fact. Ikkyu2 22:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Andy Saunders. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as random porn article. Stifle 12:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Randonm porm, nn --Brian1979 14:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't!. There are plenty of articles like this one. This stub should rather be expanded, and that is why it is related on stub categories. --FelipeBusnello 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • If there are others, how about giving me a list of them? I'd be more than happy to see those deleted too. -R. fiend 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay then -- the onus is on people to expand the article to the point that it establishes her notability. Being a porn actress, in of itself, is not notable. However, until that is done, my vote is speedy delete due to no assertion of notability. --Andy Saunders 16:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. No claim to notability makes it a candidate for speedy delete but the AfD should be closing today anyway. I'll tag it as speedy anyway, what the heck. Ifnord 23:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garbageprophecy.org

Yes, it's a website. I bet it even exists. Anyone have any idea how many websites exist in the world? I bet it's quite a few. We don't need them all littering wikipedia, and this is no exception. -R. fiend 19:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, possible copyvio, definitely nn. --Andy Saunders 19:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Let's get luckier by removing garbage, starting right here. Delete. DJ Clayworth 19:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as vanity nn website. *drew 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable Web site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as garbage. Stifle 12:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G1). howcheng {chat} 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Little Bobby

Delete. This article has nothing to do with anything. Kinesis 14 19:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. — FireFox • T • 20:13, 26 January 2006

[edit] Chantelle Houghton

I believe this article is nonsense, and complete rubbish. We don't even have an article for Anthony Hutton so why have one on her? Chias 19:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The solution is to write one on Anthony Hutton. This is the 3rd nomination in two weeks, and User:Chias's first ever edit. Speedy Keep for now, revisit in 6 months.-- GWO
Speedy keep; Yeah, being on BB is notable enough for inclusion. --Andy Saunders 19:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy keep as per the last two nominations. -Sweetie Petie 19:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 15:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin-celt

Completely unreferenced article, almost certainly original research. No references to show that the term "Latin-celt" is notable, or indeed in use at all for any ethnic group. The article consists mainly of information on Celtic, French and Mediterranean history and people -- all of which can be found elsewhere -- mixed together with a completely unsubstantiated theory about the colouring of Irish people. It appears to be similar to Black Irish, although that article correctly identifies the theory as a myth arising from the common misconception that only fair/red colouring is typical to "native Irish". Note: I'm not suggesting the "Black Irish" article should be deleted - although it is a myth, the term is notable. --Ryano 19:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Cleanup for now; relist if that is not possible. --Andy Saunders 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I don't see any possibility for clean-up: even if it's cleaned up to featured article quality, that won't make the term Latin-celt worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia without its notability and currency being established. --Ryano 23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Has to be deleted unless sources, references and notability are established quickly. Obviously there are people of joint latin / celtic descent in the wide world but as it stands it looks like an attempt by the author to be considered the originator of a phrase which is not what Wikipedia is about. --Deiz 21:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not even original research, merely personal opinion. If the author cannot defend his/her assertions then we have to ask why it was written in the first place. The article needs deletion as it is a flawed concept to begin with, not cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.63.68.182 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete, doesn't seem salvagable, as per nom. Lukas (T.|@) 11:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the term itself has no known references and the whole article is original research and POV. 69.157.121.76 23:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article is someone's bizarre POV and there are no references or sources whatsoever. The somewhat "darker" elements in native British Isles populations can hardly be considered "Latin" in any shape or form and none of the people mentioned (i.e. Andrea Corr) have any known linkage with people in the Mediterranean. Epf 23:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Shanel 18:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Crosina

So I guess every professional athlete in the world has somehow been deemed encyclopedic, but "semi-professional"? we really have to draw the line somewhere. I could stretch this as an A7, but I won't. -R. fiend 19:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- non-notable. --Andy Saunders 19:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepIt turns out his a professional athelete, I have changed the article to reflect the changes. Marcus1060 19:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looked at hockeydb; if he was notable, he'd have statistics there. There is a listing, but as a member of the UBC team. Still non-notable in my books. Andy Saunders 19:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep professional sportsperson. Whats UBC for those of us that dont speak Canadian?? Jcuk 21:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
University of British Columbia. -- Andy Saunders 21:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • WEll I hardly think he's more notable than the team he played for, which doesn't even have an article. -R. fiend 21:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The BCHL is a semi-pro "Junior A" hockey league, which is kind of to hockey what Division I-AA or low Division I-A college football is to the NFL. UBC is the University of British Columbia. -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Equivalent to a semi-pro college team. In other words not a professional athlete. -R. fiend 03:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was copyvio, sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 20:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Industryplayer

Alexa rank of 274,752. Their forum has 2,390 posts. Total downloads from during the last year - soft32.com - 1634. Blatant advert. Very likely nn.

  • Delete Renata 19:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Andy Saunders 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete copyright violation. Reference notice on page.--Adam (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't speedy, as the article has existed for more than 48 hours. Recommend leaving it to WP:CP. Stifle 20:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Wiki alf deleted "Its just a fact" (G1 nonsense also at AfD with 1 nom, 1 del, 2 speedy)

[edit] Its just a fact

This is not a notable internet meme as far as I am aware. Thue | talk 19:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, patent nonsense. --Andy Saunders 19:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete DJ Clayworth 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terence John Arbuthnot

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Perfecto as nn-bio. It's an article about a recipient of the Croix de Guerre. I know that consensus has dictated that recipients of the Victoria Cross are notable, but wasn't sure about this award, so I'm bringing it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 19:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep and expand. How did he earn the award? --Andy Saunders 19:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep he seems notable enough to me, but the article needs to be fixed up and expanded.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 19:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I tried to fix a few things and add some more links, but it needs more work.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 19:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Arbuthnot_family Kittybrewster 22:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless explanation and verification of the Croix de Guerre is produced, confirming that the heroism was of the highest order (roughly equivalent to Victoria Cross or similar), as the Croix de Guerre has been awarded at various levels. The article as it currently stands has no other claim to notability — many people fought in the second world war, were group captains, etc.. His membership of the Arbuthnot family does not qualify as a notable accomplishment. Sliggy 23:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete but subject to change per Sliggy. Stifle 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. --Malthusian (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted closing AfD. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prosthetic Hebrew

Seems this band have no entry on Allmusic, and according to Google is 'working on their debut EP'. Not notable.

Speedy, nn-band. --Andy Saunders 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete nn-band and WP:NFT. The school's 20 miles up the road from me, if it was serious I would have heard of it. Stifle 09:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Omar Q. Beckins

Delete. Omar Q. Beckins is not real. Beckins is a fictional character that was created by Les Roby. There is no record of him ever existing. If you do an internet search for Beckins you will find that there is no record of him other than information derived from Wikipedia. Pikwik 19:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy as hoax. --Andy Saunders 19:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as possible hoax. Stifle 09:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self call

Incorrectly tagged as a speedy. This term is a valid one, though I don't think it's used as it is here. I still say delete because the term described here isn't consistent to what I know of the term, and even if it is, it's only a dicdef at most. --Deathphoenix 19:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, neologism at best. --Andy Saunders 19:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Slang limited to a certain georgraph, while irrelevant to those who do not live in the region in which it is used, is still relevant to those who do know about it. Isn't the whole purpose of Wikipedia to educate others about things they do not know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.41.15.46 (talk • contribs).
    • Comment: Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide (WP:NOT). --Andy Saunders 21:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Vslashg 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this is not a slang or idiom guide, then why is a page like creampie accepted by Wikipedia? Stop being hypocrites. --Beal007 21:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Because "creampie" has gained widespread acceptance and is verifiable. Self-call, on the other hand, has not. --Andy Saunders 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Home of the Underdogs. --Deathphoenix 22:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Underdogs

Pure nonsense. Abu Badali 19:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Home of the Underdogs. While this article is nonsense, "The Underdogs" could be used feasibly to search for HotU. --Andy Saunders 20:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Underdog (disambiguation) or put a disambig on top of the HotU article. Nifboy 20:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks like a real songwriting/producing team. [27] No Guru 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Home of the Underdogs, as is the more common usage (at least in wikipedia) of [[The Underdogs]] --Larsinio 19:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Am I the only one who thinks this producing group is notable enough to have their own article ? To quote from the link I posted above - "The Underdogs have contributed to over 50 singles and albums that have reached Gold, Platinum, and multi-Platinum sales status, and have generated numerous Top 10 singles". I'm not sure how the article is nonsene as it seems to check out to me. Maybe it needs to be cleaned up but I'm not sure I understand this growing consensus to redirect. Maybe somebody could straighten me out ! Thanks. No Guru 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QT's Diary

  • Delete because the article's subject has dubious notability and contains assertions that constitute original research. For example, it makes claims that are not -- and could not be -- backed up (such as calling QT's Diary "one of the most imaginative blogs to have ever surfaced on the Internet", making generalizations about the feelings of readers of the blog. and theorizing that the blog may have been a hoax perpetrated by Quentin Tarantino himself.) In addition, the extended narrative of the blog's existence is not written in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia, and should, at a minimum, be considered for clean-up. (The statements previously mentioned were revised by another editor.)Skleinjung 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleanup, though notablility is slightly tenuous. If cleanup not possible, relist. --Andy Saunders 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, has been a recent subject of media attention.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 10:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking over the notability guidelines for web content again, I still fail to see how this page meets them. There is no case for it meeting requirements 2 or 3. In addition, the article fails to provide proof that what it pertains to is the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" via links or specific references. If we discount blogs and message board posts (as the notability guidelines require), there is but a single online source I could find that even mentions the blog (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5325241.html) -- I still have not located the Time magazine article mentioned on the page. While the recent cleanup edit was a vast improvement, there are still a number of statements in the article that are not sourced and cannot be verified, such as: the number of hits ('over a million visitors'), quotes by people related to the article (Quentin thinking it was "funny", Bumble Ward's reaction to the blog), the "unnamed Canadian website design company" being asked to produce a new website for the blog, and the dubious claims that this blog was 'one of the most-read' and 'one of the most imaginative' blogs to have ever surfaced. If it is decided that the page should be kept, then these -- and other similar -- statements can be removed, but I do not think that there will be very much verifiable content left afterwards. Skleinjung 22:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. Punkmorten 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Songa

Delete, because the page is a misspelled stub version of the already existing So'unga page.

  • A redirect to So'unga should be sufficient here. Nothing worth merging from this stub. Vslashg 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Vslashg, --Andy Saunders 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All the Niggas in My Hood Shout

I moved this from All The Niggas In My Hood Shout, then noticed that it seems to be complete nonsense, see google [28]. Flowerparty■ 19:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy, album does not exist. --Andy Saunders 19:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Punkmorten 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy does not exist. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Brian1979 14:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G1). howcheng {chat} 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yellow Four Code

Nonsense with an apparent connection with computing. By its own admission a reference to absolutly nothing. -- RHaworth 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy as possible OR. --Andy Saunders 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete patent nonsense.--Adam (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete patent nonsense. Stifle 20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A7). howcheng {chat} 20:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LinuxSA

non noteable Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nn-club. --Perfecto 20:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frollett

Neologism: WP:NOT - Original research. Term mentioned on Emo fashion page, but otherwise very little outside of a couple of a couple of blogs. — RJH 19:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Alan Au 19:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am relatively familiar with weird hair (see: Mohawk hairstyle, 2nd picture down) and haven't heard this word before. I should get a picture of one of my friends and put it on the emo fascism page with a note as to the description. This term is anything but definitive or widespread and should thusly not be used; the hair is very popular, however. -Ich 16:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as recreation of an afd'd article -- Francs2000 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Frollett - 26 January 2006 nomination
Wow, I didn't realize this article had already been nominated for deletion. Here we are again though with the same reason: it is original research. A Google search shows that this term pretty much exists only on Wikipedia, its mirrors, and as a surname. Also, there are no Google images that match "frollett". Delete! CrypticBacon 20:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nom'd for speedy deletion - recreation of previously deleted material. Kafziel 22:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devulcanised Rubber Compound

Delete Article is purely an ad for their product, including contact information ChemGardener 20:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 20:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement. *drew 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 09:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. James084 15:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCDe✉ 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 4700 files

Unable to verify existence of this book, or indeed even the purported author, Ira Markowitz. Delete unless verified. TimPope 20:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, Seems like a hoax to me, I can't find any other books by the author on Amazon, so if it's real it's probably the first book by a new author, which would probably warrant a non-notable deletion. Obli (Talk) 21:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Obli. Stifle 09:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, even OCLC WorldCat/FirstSearch has no results. Ardric47 02:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 19:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reservoir Songs

Minor EP by a band that doesn't even have an article. It does, however, have "linear notes". -R. fiend 20:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep and clean up as a release by a notable band. Crooked Fingers qualifies as notable per music notability guidelines: the band has toured internationally and been reviewed in major music media (Rolling Stone, All Music Guide, Billboard, Spin, etc. [29]), and the frontman was once a part of a band that is otherwise extremely notable (Eric Bachmann from Archers of Loaf, a prominent 90s indie rock band). This release was reviewed by notable online sources, e.g., All Music, Onion AV, Village Voice, Pitchfork. --Muchness 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The band doesn't have an article, leading me to believe their album shouldn't either. I'd accept merging into the band's new article if the band actually meets WP:NMG. Stifle 09:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm absolutely shocked that Crooked Fingers lacks an article. I'll be starting that article this morning, for the record. Also, they certainly meet WP:MUSIC with more than 2 records on important indie label Merge Records, they have toured the US and perhaps internationally, and have gotten plenty of press in music magazines. My vote for this album will be keep. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - I've created the Crooked Fingers article, and I've cleaned up the article itself. I'm curious as to why someone would point out the "linear notes" mistake and not fix it when they saw it, but that's beside the point. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, EP by notable band. Kappa 10:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nache

Together goes half a dozen other articles, whose fate is to be decided by this vote. (Paulina Nowicka, Wokalistka grupy Nache Natalia, To Co W Życiu Najważniejsze,Dziewczyny,Zabierz Mnie Ze Sobą,Nache (album))

I would also ask pop music experts to thoroughly verify other contributions of 84.40.192.143 (talk • contribs), who was the author. E.g. I see he tried to add (mis)info into Emma Bunton (at least I see all his "contributions" have been removed). mikka (t) 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Del: verifiability problem. Either an elaborate hoax or most shameless promo I've seen. Some artcles of the "Nache" series claim enormous notability, including BMG records; eg., one article says "Album have sell 700.000 copies", Nache album - "six times platinum" - it should be quite notable in Poland, then. mikka (t) 20:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE: as per nom -- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DELETE - obviously this article is a joke somebody is playing. There is no word spelled nache in Polish. All the related articles linked to this one must be deleted as well. Hard to believe this article managed to stay up for half a year. Balcer 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If this was as good of a band as they said it was, I would see something about "Nache" in the Polish wikipedia. hoax....--Adam (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I investigated this myself as much as I could and felt it was a hoax. I then called in Winston.PL and Mikkalai, both of whom speak Polish and they independently confirmed my belief it was a hoax. As such, it could be speedied. But, give the age of the articles and the number of them, I thought it better to bring it to AfD. --Durin 22:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious hoax. The sooner this stuff gets deleted the better. I suppose even Molobo should agree with me on this. ;) Speedy delete,--Thorsten1 22:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately WP:CSD specifically excludes hoaxes. Besides, no reason to rush. They sat here for half a year. All possible harm has already been done. mikka (t) 22:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • On the other hand, a template:hoax must have ben placed on them on the first suspicion. (Now it would be meaningless anyway) mikka (t) 23:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh my, Thorsten, I told you we would agree on something one day! Speedy delete BTW I googled it on Polish google, and no, they definitely don't exist.--SylwiaS | talk 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advert/hoax. incog 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gigaware

Delete article is only an ad for the company ChemGardener 20:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising, no notability established. JIP | Talk 20:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ad.--Adam (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertising.--B.U. Football For Life|Talk 21:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ads. *drew 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as advert. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert. Stifle 09:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shittles

I'm unable to verify this. Shittles get many Google hits but sinks to the low hundreds when including terms like Yorkshire, glass or even pub. Punkmorten 21:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom; unverifiable, probable joke/hoax. --Muchness 23:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete complete nonsense, who cares about this.--Adam (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have no doubt that some people care about it in Yorkshire, but it is unverified at the moment. I'm open to changes if I see references. Stifle 09:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 23:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toyota Boshoku Corporation

As non-notable. 375 Google hits. Perhaps merge with Toyota Group. ComputerJoe 21:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete. 19 manufacturing plants in Japan, 44 overseas affiliates, $800 million in sales in 2005. Did you search for it in Japanese? In any case, it's an independent company. Just because Google English does not get a lot of hit does not mean it's not worthwhile. Just because the article is a stub does not mean it shouldn't be there. Toyota Group is not a company. The server is running out of room or something? Oh, and computer joe, fix your sig, it's annoying. Christopher Mahan 21:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep In Japan being a "member of a group" does not mean "subsidiary". See sogo shosha. Merchbow 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep no reason for deleting Fg2 00:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Christopher. Stifle 09:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Oh this is absolutely ridiculous. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. For oh so many reasons. Crypticfirefly 04:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, based on changed/improved content. - Andre Engels 10:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House divided

Not an article, just text of speech (that is already on Wikisource). If there was going to be a separate Wikipedia article about this speech, it should be called House Divided Speech or something similar. I say just delete this page. JW1805 (Talk) 21:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Speedy Keep per excellent work by TMS63112 -Jcbarr 21:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Have removed original text since it is at wikisource and created a stub that outlines the importance of the speech. Keep TMS63112 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per TMS63112. Article has been turned into a proper Wikipedia article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the current version. Stifle 09:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glen Atkinson

This just screams vanity to me. -R. fiend 21:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. -Jcbarr 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. *drew 22:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity/nn Ikkyu2 22:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 22:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable biography of a homeopath and former astrologer.  (aeropagitica)  23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity--Adam (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable vanity biography. Stifle 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete, and block user's account. DS 00:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Masilland

Neologism. No google hits. Delete LordViD 21:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete OR. Gazpacho 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Maselli1

Keep JAM

Look, its that guy's definition of a previously undefined word. Truthiness stayed, so should this Keep

  • Delete Not notable Not verifyable. Author Maselli1 for a page called Masilland? Obina 23:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP. Look, if YOU made a similar page, would you want it crushed while still being edited? I know the author of said page. He was still working on the legitimate article. Why do you care, anyway?

KEEP. Personally, I don't like Maselli1 very much, but it is a matter of principle. It's HIS word. Let others know about it. Ignorance will only lead to man's downfall. And besides, are there not freedoms of speech?

-Pizzario

-PS Maselli1, where is my money you owe me?

_pps Obario, youre not cool.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G4 Off Topic Forum

This article consisting of nothing has already had two speedy delete requests removed. I wouldn't be surprised if by the time this is posted, the afd post is removed. Anyway, this should be speedy deleted ErikNY 22:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


if you give us a while, we will have a full page within an hour


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Ifnord 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Ufology

User:Vufors wrote this on his/her user page, then moved it to the main article. I'm not sure if it's a copyvio, or if it's complete nonsense. You decide.-- BRIAN0918 22:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Nominate — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-26 22:29
  • Keep Interesting new infomation. Seems to be a work in progress that will tighten up over time. NO valid reason to delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.83.73.188 (talk • contribs).
    • Anonymous user, may be the same as the one below. Check ISP address in above History Tab.
  • Keep, Detailed info, just needs work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.42.174 (talk • contribs).
    • Anonymous user, may be the same as the one above. Check ISP address in above History Tab.
  • Keep, no valid reason for deletion given. Stifle 09:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverified piffle. Ambi 09:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep no valid reason for deletion supplied. Blowback000 09:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- weak sources, and mostly, as mentioned above, unverified. - Longhair 10:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ambi and Longhair. Sarah Ewart 10:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense.--nixie 10:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Article is poorly written at this stage but appears to relate to an actual group. Whilst requiring content as well as conjunction editing and further verification, it appears a valid side-link to the accepted page ufology. I agree with those others above that say No valid reason has been given for deletion at this time. VirtualSteve 10:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • ...erm, it's completely unverified. That is kind of a major reason to delete it.Ambi 09:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry Ambi - don't you think that if we deleted everything that was completely unverified at its first blush on Wiki - we would have less than half of the current contents on the pedia? VirtualSteve 10:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Besides it seems that User:Vufors is adding verification links as we debate the keep/delete of the article. I suggest that he/she looks at the Wiki:Manual of style on how to provide a correct opening paragraph and then we can all get in to help clean up the article in general.VirtualSteve 11:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject of interest to certain people, like any other article. The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Robertbrockway 08:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and (continue the) cleanup. Subject matter is notable. Andjam 23:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Notability is not in question, of course, since notability is not a deletion criterion. Verifiability is in question. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-31 00:05
      • Wikipedia:Deletion policy says that articles lacking verification should not be deleted, only articles that cannot ever be verified. Andjam 04:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs a cleanup, but promises to be interesting and thorough article. Cnwb 03:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCDe✉ 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danzelman

Neologism, original research, on sexual practice, unverifiable, WP:BALLS MNewnham 22:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Muchness 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BALLS. Stifle 09:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCDe✉ 16:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikidemia

Appears to be original research; page is written as an essay, and the term gets 350 google hits so sounds hardly like a scientific topic. Radiant_>|< 22:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to say the article is good or anything, but I think the topic could be of intrinsic interest to wikipedia users and to more people as wiki software comes more in use, so I am (tentatively) for keep. Ben T/C 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as OR. --Muchness 23:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a stub, and it does seem worded like an essay, but I think it was OK. Also, the fact that the term turns up several hundred results on Google implies that it's starting to become more popular in usage. Though I'm not sure if this might count as more of a Wiktionary-appropriate entry than a Wikipedia-appropriate entry.

Runa27

  • Delete it's in the wrong namespace, and already exists (Wikipedia:Wikidemia) in the right namespace. Ziggurat 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gene Hendricks

Delete. I would have put this up for speedy deletion, based on CSD A7, but it tries to assert some notability within the article. However, information is unverified - I can't find anything for this Gene Hendricks on Google, and a search for "Gene Hendricks" and "The Big Bopper" comes up with no Google hits. No sources are provided, and no pages, not even that for The Big Bopper, link to this article. Delete for non-notability - I wanted to list here to make sure. -Rebelguys2 22:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 09:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for failed Google verification on facts that would likely be easily verified if true. - Andre Engels 10:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not quite an obvious hoax, but obvious to anyone who knows the story of The Day The Music Died. There were only three performers on that plane - Valens, Holly and The Big Bopper, no 'Gene Hendricks'. --Malthusian (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - the article doesn't claim he was on that plane; it says he died in another plane crash, about one year later. - Andre Engels 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --156.34.83.163 11:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Wave of American Heavy Metal

Apparent neologism

Delete. Neologism. This term is not in wide use, and I can only find a couple references to it on Google (mostly of one obscure book about the subject). I'm from Massachusetts, and I know that this term is not in wide use there. I'm also a big heavy metal fan, and the first time I ever encountered this term was on Wikipedia. --AaronS 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I also haven't yet been able to find mention of this term in any of the other heavy metal articles (for easy browsing, see the template). --AaronS 03:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
For clarification, for those who aren't familiar with the history of heavy metal, there is a New Wave of British Heavy Metal, but not an American one. The former was a turning point in the development of the genre; the latter seems to be the result of the fans of a small subgenre wanting to add a certain level of importance to the bands of their particular form of music. --AaronS 05:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Jasmol 04:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - as AaronS points out, this allusion is an attemp to promote a small set of bands as a revolutionary movement on par with the NWOBHM. Besides their questionable claim to notoriety, another issue is that the term "New Wave of American Heavy Metal" has been used before, many times, to refer to many different things. Here, for example, is a book by that title that seems to be about a much larger set of american bands. My point is, I would not consider this a neologism. Despite the nonexclusivity of these bands' claim to the label, if they are _now well-defined and well-known by this term (and I don't know if they are), the page should be kept. I would prefer an article stating that it is an allusion to the NWOBHM and that these(...) are some movements that have claimed the title. Maybe that's what we'll end up with eventually if we keep it. -Meegs 06:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Reply - Thanks for your comment. That book seems to have been published last month, with a sales rank of 165,000 on Amazon.com. Such a recent press and such a small market (and arguably poor sales) suggest that it should not have much, if any, on the influence of such an article on Wikipedia. Furthermore, many of the bands that it lists are bands from other genres, namely thrash metal, speed metal, hardcore, nu metal, and others. Hardcore and nu metal are arguable not subgenres of heavy metal. Some of the bands, like Pantera, are hardly "new". In my experience as an avid metal fan (and resident of Massachusetts, which is apparently the birthplace of the NWOAHM), I can say that, in my experience, this term is nonexistent. I first encountered it on Wikipedia. To me, that seems like a neologism.
      • Coincidentally, I'm also a sometimes-MA resident and a NWOBHM fan. I suspect you're right about the lack of cohesion and notability of this group of bands. I brought up the book only as an example, there are many other diverse uses on Google, though I'm not saying that any of them warrent inclusion either. If the term is neogolism, it is one that has been frequently, and probably independently, rediscovered many times. NWOBHM is pretty easy to lampoon. -Meegs 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
To add my two cents to this. NWOAHM is a neoglism term used by verying fans of verying bands that originate from America. I have personally heard it used, most notably in my experience, by people from America, to promote any american band from any genre pertaining to metal in the media's eyes. It has only ever been used in my experience, with bands that the person using it likes. I can find no information from the world wide metal community about it being an actuall movement, at all. Most all the bands on that page are metalcore, and half of them arent even that new. The whole term is neoglism in my view, and the article easily warrents deletion. P.S. Nu Metal is a genre of Metal, with Metalcore's origination being elsewhere. Metalcore can be debated, and if such debates are going to be made on where genres belong, they should be made on the dicussion page of the article for that genre. ~~Leyasu
  • delete per nom Spearhead 12:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ifnord 18:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Abscure term used on only a few forums. Cobra 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Loudenvier 21:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - if this does exist, the article is sorely in need of references that don't deal with blogs or fansites. B.Wind 04:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Count: that's 7 deletes and 0 keeps, if I am counting correctly. So far, there seems to be a consensus. I therefore upgrade my vote to a speedy delete. --AaronS 17:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCDe✉ 16:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Floppy Disk Toons

Delete as seems to be only a vanity page. Don't fear the Reaper 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as vanity. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 09:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 22:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scoopal.com

  • Search yields Results 1 - 10 of about 11,600 for "Scoopal.com". (0.05 seconds). Is that a handful?--Sayanchak 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • del promo of nn blog host. Looks like very new, just a handful of google hits. mikka (t) 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 09:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -Greg Asche (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brainiac Dead

Delete as vanity page Don't fear the Reaper 22:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Well, it wasn't blank at the time. I tried speedying it, but the OP reverted so I thought I'd give them a chance to explain here why it should be kept. Don't fear the Reaper 00:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I reverted the blanking, to find the page makes no assertion of notability and hence WP:CSD A7 applies. Speedy delete, {{nn-band}} tag applied. Sliggy 23:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maki Kirioka

notability, he composed two songs for a videogame. see also List of Bemani musicians. Melaen 22:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, produced songs for a notable series of music games. Kappa 07:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable/unverifiable. Stifle 01:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sceptre
  • Weak delete. I do think it's verifiable; bits and pieces can be found reasonably easily using google, however that's exactly what it is: bits and pieces, very brief mentions, and generally on websites which hoard cruft. Not notable. --Qirex 23:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - A composer with a grand total of 2(!) songs from video games. That's a bit little, as is the amount of information on the page. - Andre Engels 10:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Macki Kirioka is a bemani composer, having only two songs produced as of yet" - self-admittedly fails WP:MUSIC. --Malthusian (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" Kappa 10:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delele--nixie 10:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Çağlar

I can find no trace of the subject (in so far as the subject can be understood from what's here; I suspect that it's either a hoax or an article about a fictional world. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment At the very least this article requires references and citations to demonstrate notability. At the moment it is impossible to determine if this is a {{hoax}} or real without a detailed knowledge of the subject.  (aeropagitica)  23:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • very weak keep (notability?) and cleanup. It is Albanian thingy (Can't you read Albanian? :-) "Ku është shpata, është feja”. No wonder no one knows. It looks like this is either a computer translation or poor transation. mikka (t) 00:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as confused rubbish. Stifle 09:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Out of context, lacking sources.   freshgavin TALK    00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonsense. incog 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rinsco

Non-notable company; less than 50 hits on a Google search for "Rinsco". Andy Saunders 22:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable local company. Obina 23:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Notable status of company not asserted by author; appears to fail criteria set out in WP:CORP for notable company status.  (aeropagitica)  23:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 09:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It appears that Andy Saunders has wayyy too much time on his hands. I propose a 2 month moratorium on Andy Saunders.. --Beal007 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep Rinsco. Delete Andy Saunders. --Joe bags 18:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: User's second edit. --Andy Saunders 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep it. I encourage all users who have an up and coming company to file their company names in a similar fashion. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.76.164 (talk • contribs).
Keep. A travesty to delete. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.6.144.221 (talk • contribs).
Note: 66.153.76.164 blanked the AFD page to vote Keep. -- Andy Saunders 04:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: Andy Saunders has a vendetta against Rinsco. Time to ban him from the Canadian Quiz Show Circuit. Besides, his mommy always told him to tattle tale on deleters of posts that don't agree with him. --Beal007 13:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: Ken Jennings <gulp> --Joe bags 15:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kaides

Delete. The text is vanity. It doesn't seem noteable/verifiable. The only content I could find as sources were by the author of Kaides himself (who is in IMHO identical to the author of the article). I waited very long (be nice to newcomers) but didn't get any reaction to my question. Ben T/C 22:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Non notable. WP:NOT crystal ball.Obina 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "... a character... currently in development..." makes this non-notable by definition.  (aeropagitica)  23:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Stifle 09:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 22:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renée Bordereau

If this is all one can say about a person I don't see how it could ever be an encyclopedia article, though I guess there is some sort of claim of notability (a very minor one). Somewhere this can redirect to? -R. fiend 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Lots of pages come up for this name in Google, and it appears to be the same person, though I am not well-versed in the French language (most of the pages are in French). I think that this page could certainly be a good English-language source of information on this person if given the proper TLC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Real if relatively minor figure. Dlyons493 Talk 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Lots of Google results, plus what looks like a biography and an autobiography in the references section. ×Meegs 04:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, it's improved alot since I nominated it, but I'd still like to see some more significant information. -R. fiend 05:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • It wikipedia decided to delete all the articles which need "some more significant information" that would be something like 900,000. Merchbow 05:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's true. Thank you for your great work (once again), Dlyons493. ×Meegs 05:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep someone wrote a book about her so expansion must be possible. Merchbow 05:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. And someone with a copy of Marilyn Yalom's, Blood Sisters: The French Revolution in Women's Memory should be able to expand it. Crypticfirefly 05:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Pacific Trim, there is a tiny bit of information on the extra track for the vinyl version of this album. --Deathphoenix 22:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific Trim 7"

Very near duplicate of existing article Pacific Trim; the slight differences between the CD and vinyl releases don't require a new article. The reason I don't just merge it back / revert it to how it was is that I don't see a need for a redirect page at Pacific Trim 7" --Qirex 23:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and move whatever is worthwhile that's not duplicated into Pacific Trim. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it's already here, but I'd've gone with the redirect beforehand. The only difference in the two articles is the 4th track in the listing (and the sentence saying that the 7" has an extra track), so make sure that one bit of info somehow gets into Pacific Trim. ×Meegs 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to Pacific Trim, redirects are cheap. Stifle 09:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I will say that it is better to give some reasons for why something is "non notable", instead of just asserting it. But the article contained little more than a list of features, so I am comfortable with deleting it anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheyenne bitware

non notable software. delete. Melaen 23:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 09:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as the article reads like a self-promotional piece. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PubSub Concepts

vanity piece

Vanity piece (or advertisement) Jim62sch 23:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and Cleanup - website has alexa rank of 12,916 and the google search for [pubsub search] turned up about 1,340,000 hits. The article does read like an advertisement, though. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alexa rank of 10000 or better required for notability. Stifle 09:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Did you check the google search? It's been covered by the Wall Street Journal [30], among other places, making it notable under WP:WEB. Also, my understanding of WP:GT is that due to the volatility and sampling errors inherent to alexa's ranking system, the alexa rank cutoffs are mere guidelines and not hard-and-fast rules. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 09:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentA vast majority of the hits are for the publish/subscribe (pubsub) concept itself, not for the company. Jim62sch 23:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertisement. - Andre Engels 10:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Chiropractic

Cut-and-pasted thesis. Likely a copyvio. Certainly original research and POV 23skidoo 23:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advert/copyvio/complete mess. However, it seems to have been created by its author. Therefore I am going to leave him a message telling him that Wikibooks or Wikisource may be interested. Stifle 09:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armageddon Express

Reasonably well written, but vanity about movie, doubted notability of phrase, written by User:PosseofTwo. Drdisque 23:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as original research, I think. Stifle 09:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Save my page! Yes, it has band vanity, but in this case it makes sense as we use the term. If you look up the term, you will find multiple references. There's even an Armageddon Express t-shirt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.249.23.29 (talk • contribs).
A T-shirt does not notability make -Drdisque 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. -- Curps 05:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. Ifnord 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Binick

Non-notable, and appears to simply be an expression by a non-notable person. Searching Google for "Binick" reveals a number of pages referring to people with the last name of Binick, but no uses in this context. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as neologism. I have the same conclusion as the nom after looking at google results, plus it's hard to take it seriously with bits like "its meaning has been interwoven in the fabric of our society for thousands of years..." ×Meegs 04:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 09:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism, and a waste of time... --Brian1979 22:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of above. James084 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. --BorgQueen 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manaria

no-content nonsense Savidan 23:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unverified probable vanity -Drdisque 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as either patent nonsense or no context. —ERcheck @ 01:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible speedy. Probable hoax. Creator appears to have been blocked. Stifle 09:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Turnstep 20:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous. Argument for deletion is that "Llull winner" is a neologism and that the article is original research. Meegs has argued that the content is valid, but that the title is wrong. Stifle has argued that this can be redirected to to Condorcet winner.

I will not redirect this to the Condorcet article, because without any mention of Llull there, such a redirect may be confusing to the readers, and Meigs has argued that there are subtle differences. Also a link is provided in the article as a reference, so I am not convinced that this constitutes original research either. It is true that "Llull winner" does not Google, and is therefore an unlikely search term. "Llull voting system" howeverhas been used in at least one paper, so I am calling this a move to Llull voting system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Llull winner

A neologism that means the same thing as Condorcet winner, by the author of Condorcet-Hare Method. 0 Google hits. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 23:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I just removed a complaint I had about the article's reference, because the reference turns out to be valid. Unfortunately, I did it on a computer where my girlfriend Cmouse was logged in. So this isn't a case of my comment being randomly altered by someone else. Please note that, ordinarily, Cmouse and I are different people. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 00:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are no hits for the exact title, so perhaps the article should be renamed, but the article is valuable and verifiable. In addition to the reference, you get lots of relevant hits about his voting system searching for Llull + voting. ×Meegs 04:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It means the same thing as Condorcet winner, as far as I can tell, and no matter what it means, it's original terminology that Wikipedia should not be used to promote. Also, of course you get hits when you look up Llull and voting; he's the earliest known voting theorist. Naming your original research after a notable person like Llull does not make it notable itself. Such an argument was made and withdrawn by someone at Condorcet-Hare Method, an article by the same author. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This is a description of a voting scheme whose winner satisfies the Condorcet criterion, but the system itself includes number of features (e.g. all-pairs voting vs. voting with a single ranking and allowing indifference between a pair candidates) that are not necessarily present in other systems fitting the criterion. As I said, I'd prefer to rename and keep the article about this system as it is notable and based on secondary sources, but I'll go-along with a merge (& condensation) to any of several destinations including Ramon Llull and Condorcet criterion. ×Meegs 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Regardless of how much you like it, it's original research being used to define a neologism, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The secondary source does not support the definition, it is only used in the article to cite the fact that Llull came up with the Condorcet criterion before Condorcet did (which is mentioned at Voting system). The fact that some random guy named a definition that nobody else on the Internet uses after Llull should not be part of the article on Ramon Llull. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Again, I do not want to keep the title which is an original creation. There are numerous higher-order sources for the article's content — the description of his voting system, and if possible, I'd like to find a place to keep it. ×Meegs 17:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Condorcet winner. Redirects are cheap. If you want to point out that this guy didn't get credit for some development, stick it at the end of that article. Stifle 09:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. - Andre Engels 10:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to the company Lake owns, Team Complexity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Lake

non-notable captain of a dubious notability videogame clan. he has no notability outside this games club, and the games club itself has an article already. author appears to be club member, so possible vanity as well as non-notability? Zzzzz 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 23:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Team Complexity. Stifle 09:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If being the owner of something is your only claim to fame, it better be something really big. - Andre Engels 10:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If the wiki article for Kyle Miller can exist without a problem, there is no reason this article cannot exist as the fame is just as much (and if not Jason Lake's is more). Team Complexity is just as famous as Team 3D, Team Complexity has been featured in TV shows, magazines, etc just as Team 3D. As this is the case, if the wiki article Kyle Miller can exist without deletion, then Jason Lake should exist as well. If you wish to remove it or redirect it to Team Complexity until a more information filled wiki page can be written, then go ahead and do so. Preferably a Redirect. Digx 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reuno

del promo nonnotable web artist. mikka (t) 23:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Is not notable. --Ezeu 03:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn artist. Ruby 04:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. --Terence Ong 06:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2006_January_26_49ec.html"